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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1901f265c928a511 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:47:24 -0500 Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 09:47:55 -0500 From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: groleau+news@freeshell.org Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Macintosh/20040208) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Typing in Ada References: <2i1t1lFij4g5U1@uni-berlin.de> <9ZRuc.8410$hB2.7017@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> <40BCE5E8.4040305@tidorum.fi> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.58 X-Trace: sv3-IsPDYXvY39gjPQ3Zz0oyc6OEElIIsSs7exaZ1+HvLQ3LsHOfE22qssaYhS3tqm88Gc6A/p+SNR14kJA!lkrR5daDc/iRj4V28cH3Cupqp++SHrZ5ZBVu9qLORrNvzVrR/ViAG5EQsSdiBJlxpkgMspYjp3o3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:1027 Date: 2004-06-02T09:47:55-05:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Wes Groleau wrote: > >> In a way, you are correct. But why must we put >> so much effort into preventing behavior that is >> not prohibited just because it is not required? > > There are two issues here. The first I just posted about. If the > requirements document is meaningful and maintained, the question about > 101 Apples needs to get asked, and answered. I wholeheartedly agree that the code should reflect the requirements documents whenever feasible. (Also that systems engineers should use abstractions and stop filling requirements documents with implementation details, but that's a different soapbox!) And your "trick" which > ... allows software range checking to be omitted at least on the upper > bound, and the real upper bound is set to whatever the hardware supports > for the type chosen by the compiler for Required_Apples. is excellent and definitely ... makes clear what the requirement being satisfied is. My side rant was inspired by the number of times I have fixed defects and/or supported "new" requirements by stripping out code which had no value beyond preventing the program from exceeding its perceived requirements. :-) -- Wes Groleau A UNIX signature isn't a return address, it's the ASCII equivalent of a black velvet clown painting. It's a rectangle of carets surrounding a quote from a literary giant of weeniedom like Heinlein or Dr. Who. -- Chris Maeda Ha, ha, Dr. ..... Who's Chris Maeda? -- Wes Groleau