Re: Required Metrics

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Tucker Taft" <stt@averstar.com> wrote in message
news:390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com...
> Ted Dennison wrote:
> >
> > In article <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net>,
> >   "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> > > In the Ada Reference Manual, paragraphs D.8:37-45 states that "The
> > > implementation shall document" a series of metrics related to the
> > ...
> > > details of that configuration." However, although my compiler's
> > > reference manual claims that "The real-time systems annex is fully
> > > implemented", it goes on to say " Information on metrics is not yet
> > > available." Does a compiler fully implement the real-time systems
> > > annex if it does not meet the documentation requirements?
> >
> > I remember asking almost this exact question here about a year and a
> > half ago. You can search deja for the thread. But the answer I remember
> > getting was that since there is (and can be) no test in the Ada
> > validation test suite for documentation requirements, implementors can
> > pretty much get away with murder here.
>
> The validation process (aka "conformance assessment" process) does
> not include checking conformance to the documentation requirements,
> largely for pragmatic reasons. It was felt that the cost of document
> conformance assessment would be excessive and difficult to standardize.

Well, yeah, sure, but I think my question was more "abstract" (to coin a
keyword :) than this. Simply put: Does the implementation meet the standard?
I understand that a validation suite might not detect all deviations with
respect to _functionality_, never mind documentation, since no test can be
exhaustive. However, I've seen people post behavior seen in a compiler, and
ask if it meets the standard, and few people have responded with "Sorry -
that specific behavior wasn't/wouldn't be caught in the validation suite, so
you're on your own."

> In any case, the marketplace needs to play a role
> here.  Either make good documentation a condition of sale, or give
> your existing vendor a hard time if they don't provide the documentation
> you need.

Ditto for this. I can ask for useful "stuff" (documentation, optimizations,
etc.) whether or not it's in the standard.

Alternate phrasing of the question: If a requirement is in the standard, and
no one makes an effort to follow it, what's the requirement doing in the
standard? Why not have an interpretation that says, in essence: "Oops. Never
mind"? Or am I just missing some fundamental point here?