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
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: ACVC tests
Date: 1996/04/28
Message-ID: <dewar.830712056@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 151907457
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


John McCabe said

"When I have some time, or when I can persuade my company to let me, I
will look at the ACVC tests, but the fact that I haven't so far must
not exclude me from expressing opinions on the effect of the tests,
based on the experience I have of using the products that have
(mysteriously) passed the tests!"

Ah, that's the point. You don't have this experience, since there are
no products that have passed the new ACVC 2.1 regression suite yet,
and so to make judgments based on this kind of anecdotal experience,
we at least have to get the right anecdotes.

I was not suggesting a thorough review of the tests, just take a look
at a couple of the new tests, I think you will be surprised by the
significant difference in style.