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: 103376,9ae4660d46953150 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Enhancement needed Date: 2000/09/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 669423679 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <0$9CsHAKbiv5Ewg1@ntlworld.com> <8pol3q$dnqb3$1@ID-25716.news.cis.dfn.de> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-09-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" writes: > I think the IAs can be understood by understanding the RM95 in two lights: > (a) the political viewpoint; (b) the technical viewpoint. The IAs fall > in-between the two, where you can't _tell_ them to do something (that would > be impolitic, the people who sell boats that sink would complain), but you > can _recommend_ that they do it. Nonsense. (How's that for "impolitic"? ;-)) The reason the IA isn't *required* is usually because the IA is not well defined from a formal point of view. It uses terms that are not defined in the RM, or talks about things from an implementation point of view rather than a language definition point of view. It has nothing to do with being impolitic -- after all, we weren't shy about putting in all the other thousands of hard requirements. - Bob