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: 103376,30c7725dc9463cd5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter
Date: 1997/04/17
Message-ID: <dewar.861328976@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 235635938
References: <5j1cm7$atn@news.ida.org>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dan said, responding to me:

<<> The ARG found it useful to have a category "pathological"

Well, not so terribly frequently "useful", Robert.>>


Well Dan, I think more useful than you think. Once the notion exists, it
acts as an important reminder that just because a torturous argument from
the RM says that a certain program should behave in a certain way, that
is not enough reason to legitimize a test for the feature.

That principle did not exist early on in the ACVC process, and damage
was done as a result -- most notably the test you cite (the "Rosen"
anomoly).

However, once the principle did exist, I think it helped change viewpoints,
and in particular was a definite factor in the development of the notion
of "usage oriented testing" which informed the development of the Ada 95
ACVC tests.