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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4e180de737833224 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bbalfour@std.caci.com (Brad Balfour) Subject: Re: Ada Java question => clarification Date: 1997/03/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 223335559 References: <33167E7E.4351@fn3.freenet.tlh.fl.us> Organization: CACI, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >There is a most likely misunderstanding, and I would tend to agree with >you that your misunderstanding was the most likely, but you cannot prove >that the RM reference is inappropriate or wrong by starting with the >assumption that obviously your misunderstanding is the same as any one >elses in this particular situation. True. And I don't really think that the two references provided in the error message are "inappropriate or wrong". I just think that they are incomplete. You are 100% correct when you point out that to be complete the message must include the transitive closure of the RM. I'm not really advocating that position. I'd just like the RM references to include some of the "likely" misunderstandings, such as the one I illustrated. But, as you've pointed out, it's a judgement call as to which are likely misunderstandings. Other people's may not be same as mine. As always, "your milage may vary". -- Brad Balfour SIGAda WWW Server CACI, Inc. http://www.acm.org/sigada/ (703) 277-6767 and also try: bbalfour@std.caci.com http://www.adahome.com/ 3930 Pender Drive Fairfax, VA 22030 "...they even have rules for exceptions" -- Dewar and Schonberg