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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,8143b93889fe9472
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.66.72.7 with SMTP id z7mr757655pau.15.1360469025380;
        Sat, 09 Feb 2013 20:03:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 mj10ni1062pbb.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada standard and maximum line lengths
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:09:53 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kepplj$aqa$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <8dfcf819-e1d0-4578-a795-a4bf724b5014@googlegroups.com>
 <ke55qi$59m$1@dont-email.me> <ammppjF63goU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke69q3$vou$1@dont-email.me> <amo50dFg605U1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke6o2n$jrj$1@dont-email.me> <amo8u2Fh3ngU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke7peh$tof$1@dont-email.me> <ampmcqFqh9aU1@mid.individual.net>
 <5107b329$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amptotFs5ouU1@mid.individual.net>
 <5107eaed$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amqdeeF1b3qU1@mid.individual.net>
 <51080c38$0$6561$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amqnmtF3q45U1@mid.individual.net>
 <51085776$0$6637$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <ams6reFdfsdU1@mid.individual.net> <wccfw1iheq9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <keca2j$uha$1@munin.nbi.dk> <wccwquucd1x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <kef08a$6om$1@munin.nbi.dk> <an1fdkFjimtU1@mid.individual.net>
 <kehi7k$doe$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <9f1fb966-cc23-4499-b50c-571ffc0c7f01@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1360030196 11082 69.95.181.76 (5 Feb 2013 02:09:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 02:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Received-Bytes: 3016
Date: 2013-02-04T20:09:53-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Lucretia" <laguest9000@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:9f1fb966-cc23-4499-b50c-571ffc0c7f01@googlegroups.com...
...
>> and thus relatively short. And it would be hard to justify rewriting 
>> those
>> ACATS tests (they're among the least important tests, but not so much 
>> that
>
> But surely it's better to have tests that are correct?

Sure, in an ideal world. But fixing tests is not free (especially in this 
case, where there are quite a few tests that would need to be changed). 
Would that time be better spent on adding tests for untested rules in the 
language? Or streamlining the testing process? Even if a volunteer submits 
revised tests, and those tests are perfect (and how likely is that?), there 
still is a significant (in terms of the overall budget) non-zero cost to 
adding them to the test suite. As Bob notes, the priority of this particular 
fix is rather low, because it really would not have much impact on users.

                                                              Randy.