From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66752102482bbdca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Ken Garlington" Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 618031776 References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net> <8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 957220910 216.215.84.202 (Mon, 01 May 2000 17:41:50 CDT) Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 17:41:50 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Tucker Taft" wrote in message news:390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com... > Ted Dennison wrote: > > > > In article <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net>, > > "Ken Garlington" 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?