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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Documentation In a spec File Usually Enough For You ?
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:24:11 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <pqatls$uq6$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <7fcdcc97-67e4-473b-abc4-cd0ecd4501ad@googlegroups.com>
 <pq2gge$a3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f6c0bfa-f7ed-4bee-a766-c786269f13a1@googlegroups.com>
 <pq55ad$l96$1@dont-email.me>
 <eec140a3-cab7-43d2-a6a1-dc7ebce86a5b@googlegroups.com>
 <pqafta$utu$1@dont-email.me>
 <80e23f09-06ac-4112-9b7f-e765266a952d@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:24:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="31558"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
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 V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54640
Date: 2018-10-18T16:24:11-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"AdaMagica" <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:80e23f09-06ac-4112-9b7f-e765266a952d@googlegroups.com...
...
> If I were looking for password generators, I would not waste my time
>in trying some that don't claim to produce good ones; instead I'd pick
>one with such a claim and test it thoroughly.

I'd also want some documentation as to what the author considers a "good" 
password, as the advice for that seems to change every few years. I'd guess 
that this package was based on some advice from a few years ago, so it might 
not even be "good" anymore. (That's certainly the case with a lot of Ada 
libraries, which haven't been modified for a long time as no one has seen a 
need to do so.)

After all, "good" is not a technical term, in any field that I'm aware of.

Certainly, you don't need to put this sort of documentation on individual 
subprograms; it belongs to the library as a whole. But without it, you 
really can't judge fitness.

                                        Randy.