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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,66752102482bbdca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Ken Garlington" Subject: Re: Required Metrics Date: 2000/05/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 618936425 References: <5DDO4.2237$wb7.194854@news.flash.net><8ek4ea$5ta$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <390DC8AD.59B5EBEE@averstar.com> <8ep0k3$jlr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 957400223 216.215.81.119 (Wed, 03 May 2000 19:30:23 CDT) Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 19:30:23 CDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wcczoq7jyt9.fsf@world.std.com... > The advantage of having a standard is portability. So > it's hard to get too excited about a rule in the standard that has no > effect on portability.... Eg, we all know Robert Dewar hates asynchronous transfer of > control, but it would be annoying indeed if GNAT didn't implement it. > Likewise, I hate modular types -- but of course I don't refuse to > implement them in the AverStar compilers, and I don't insist on changing > the rules to be more to my liking. These would be true even if the > ACATS didn't test for these features. You *have* changed the rules to be more to your liking, if you can *unilaterally* decide which rules affect portability (or any other desirable aspect of standardization, such as the ability to reduce training costs). For example, if a vendor decides that there's some required aspect of ATC that no one is ever going to use, and it's not required to pass the validation suite, then it sounds like that vendor is permitted to not implement the feature. Certainly, no one could in good conscience complain that this violates the standard, if they accept your argument. In addition, if vendors alone are permitted to decide what really _isn't_ in the standard, why can't vendors alone decide what's really _in_ the standard? Why spend all this time fooling with ISO standardization procedures if vendors have, in essence, a veto? Is it just for the publicity value? > The ARG still exists, and still generates AI's. > > I suspect that if you sent in a question saying "Are the metrics really > required?", the ARG would issue a ruling saying, "Yes, of course, it > says so in plain English." (I'm not sure of that; some people might use > it as an opportunity to get rid of these silly rules. Some people might > take the attitude that you can't require something unless you can > precisely define it -- and thus declare the metrics to be meaningless > gibberish.) Per the standard, I just sent the mail message attached at the end. We'll see what happens... > On the other hand, if you asked, "What, exactly, do the metrics > require?", the ARG would refuse to waste time trying to answer the > impossible. > > So, whatever compiler it was that said "Documentation not yet > available", send them a bug report. I wouldn't be surprised if it's our > compiler. ;-) If it's impossible to answer whether or not an implementation meets the requirement, what's the bug? How would I know if it's fixed? In particular, if _every_ vendor is doing this (and no one has said otherwise), it sounds like something a bug report to a single vendor won't fix. ----- From: Ken Garlington [mailto:Ken.Garlington@computer.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:23 PM To: ada-comment@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us Subject: Minimum criteria for metrics documentation !topic Minimum criteria for metrics documentation !reference RM95-D(2) !from Author Name 00-05-03 !keywords metrics, documentation, real-time !discussion Is there any criteria that can be used to determine if a vendor has formally met the requirements to document metrics described in D(2-6)? For example, which (if any) of the following conditions would be considered acceptable? 1. The vendor states that the metrics are not currently available. 2. Same as #1, but vendor provides source code for its implementation of interfaces to an underlying operating system. 3. Same as #2, but vendor explicitly states that source code is provided to meet requirement. 4. Same as #3, but vendor provides a list of which source code files are applicable.