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,d4bb9272b7314785 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: ObjectAda - no clock drift! Date: 1998/06/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 363643010 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <6m6f0t$1ue$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6m7r5m$4gn$1@usenet.rational.com> <6m904m$vv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-06-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com writes: > I guess I was mostly posting this to see if this is a just a farcical non- > compliance with the documentation standard, or if I'm misunderstanding the > standard. I think the Documentation Requirements in the RM shouldn't be there at all. You can't legislate good documentation. If you try, you get the sort of documentation you're complaining about -- totally useless information, intended purely to satisfy the letter of the law. Note that the validation process makes no attempt to verify that Documentation Requirements are met properly. If the vendor had written, "Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall" as the answer to that question, they would still be just as validated. - Bob -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry. -- Change robert to bob to get my real email address. Sorry.