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,c0f035b936128b6c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,c0f035b936128b6c X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter Date: 1997/04/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 231401995 References: <5htg0a$v8v$1@news.nyu.edu> <334929E8.4E68@gdls.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c Date: 1997-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: iArthur Schwarz says <> (by the way it would be appreicated if you keep your line length under 80!) Yes, I know this seems reasonable to those without direct experience in defining languages and dealing with language standards, but the fact of the matter is that for real life languages, there are lots of murky areas which are not so easily adjudicated, and where there is little poitn in writing tests. The ARG found it useful to have a category "pathological", which means, yes, the language is defined to behave in (surprising/silly/clearly- wrong/absurd etc) manner Y, but it is not worth trying to fix it, or to worry about it too much, since it is too marginal to be of interest (and please, ACVC folks do NOT write stupid tests). Note that the business in Arthur's message about "stressing a compiler" is not relevant at all. Stressing compilers is a good thing. We are talking about stressing the *language* here!