From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: ACVC tests
Date: 1996/04/27
Date: 1996-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.830586353@schonberg> (raw)
Ken said
"Why not read the older posts where I said I _did_ look, going so far as
to quote from the ACVC documents I reviewed on the AdaIC server? Why not
read my response to Mr. McCabe, discussing what I found? Why not answer
my questions regarding what I _couldn't_ find, AFTER the review?
If you have other documents you wish for me to review (and they, in
fact, can be accessed in a reasonably easy fashion), please feel free to
send me pointers to them. If not, please discontinue asking me to review
something that you can't identify?"
Ken, I am suggesting looking at the *tests* themselves. The entire 1.11
suite is of course availabe for review, and so is the 2.0.1 suite that
contains good examples of the new philosophy. Preliminary versions of
many 2.1 tests are also available for review.
There! identified! :-)
Actually, EVERYONE is encouraged to look at the new ACVC tests, and
comments are welcome. As Ken so often points out, we lack objective
criteria for some aspects of these tests, e.g. are they really
usage oriented. Comments from lots of users would be most helpfu :-)
next reply other threads:[~1996-04-27 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-04-27 0:00 Robert Dewar [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-04-28 0:00 ACVC tests Robert Dewar
1996-05-06 0:00 ` John McCabe
1996-05-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-05-07 0:00 ` Kevin D. Heatwole
1996-04-28 0:00 Robert Dewar
1996-05-06 0:00 ` John McCabe
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox