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: 103376,446231e9f9fb9a1c,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: ACVC tests
Date: 1996/04/27
Message-ID: <dewar.830586353@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 151685367
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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 :-)