Re: Hayes tester fails

From	"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.forth
Subject	Re: Hayes tester fails
Date	2014-01-15 00:00 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<lb4j2e$ooc$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <lam1un$vdf$1@speranza.aioe.org> <2014Jan9.135754@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <laqjkl$nqs$1@speranza.aioe.org> <2014Jan13.171841@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <lb4hco$1mj$1@speranza.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

on 14/01/2014 23:29:28, "Ed" wrote:
> Anton Ertl wrote:
>> "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> writes:
>> > ...
>> >What does the 200x TC hope to derive from tests written in Hayes format
>> ...
>> The reason why I wanted test cases in proposals where possible is that
>> proposals written in natural language (as is done in the Forth200x
>> process) is not very precise.

Marker. See below...

> 
> Sometimes that's a good thing. Faced with a poorly concieved and
> expressed function it may be possible to re-interpret it in a more
> positive light. Tests kill off that option.
> 
>> ...
>> >which will obviously show a positive outcome?
>>
>> What do you mean by that?
> 
> What is says. You ask proposers to supply the tests and the cases to
> be tested and you are expecting something other than a successful
> result? This is no test but a fait accompli.
> 
>> >The only rationale I can
>> >imagine is that it wants to add the tests to the Hayes suite.  What message
>> >would that send?
>>
>> Sounds like a rethorical question.  So what's your answer?
> 
> Based on what you have said the message from 200x is that tests are
> the way to go and users can rely on them. In supplying tests, 200x
> changes from a language standard to an implementation standard.
> 
> 
> 

There are non normative parts to many (I'd reckon on most) standards, and
language standards are not excluded from having them; nor do such non
normative statements make them implementation standards. In fact, ANS
Forth and the Forth200x update have many ambiguous conditions for
implementors to implement as they see fit, from cell size to error
handling and more.

As to tests, having them doesn't imply that "tests kills off that option
[of imprecision]". Normative statements are rarely 100% precise, so it's
helpful if non normative statements illustrate intent. (And precision is
to be welcomed in a standard; why you might want an imprecise
specification is a bit mystifying.)

I would agree however that contrary to Anton's statement above that I've
marked, making (or assuming that) these tests are normative runs contrary
to what most people would expect.

Thread

Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-08 02:20 +1100
  Re: Hayes tester fails "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-07 21:15 +0000
  Re: Hayes tester fails "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-07 21:20 +0000
  Re: Hayes tester fails anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-08 14:58 +0000
    Re: Hayes tester fails "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-08 19:53 -0500
    Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-09 21:49 +1100
      Re: Hayes tester fails anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-09 12:57 +0000
        Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 16:06 +1100
          Re: Hayes tester fails "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-11 10:28 -0500
          Re: Hayes tester fails anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-13 16:18 +0000
            Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-15 10:29 +1100
              Re: Hayes tester fails "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-15 00:00 +0000
                Re: Hayes tester fails AKK <akk@nospam.org> - 2014-01-15 02:06 +0100
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-19 01:33 +1100
                Re: Hayes tester fails anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-18 16:58 +0000
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-21 00:09 +1100
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-20 14:36 +0000
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-25 22:53 +1100
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2014-01-25 23:21 +0000
                Re: Hayes tester fails anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2014-01-21 14:50 +0000
              Re: Hayes tester fails "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-15 02:40 -0500
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2014-01-14 21:52 -1000
                Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-19 00:10 +1100
              Re: Hayes tester fails Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2014-01-15 03:28 -0600
      Re: Hayes tester fails "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-11 10:30 -0500
        Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 10:45 +1100
  Re: Hayes tester fails Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 02:51 -0800
    Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-09 22:12 +1100
      Re: Hayes tester fails Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-09 06:44 -0800
        Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-11 16:14 +1100
          Re: Hayes tester fails Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2014-01-11 02:35 -0800
          Re: Hayes tester fails Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2014-01-11 13:46 +0100
            Re: Hayes tester fails "Ed" <invalid@invalid.com> - 2014-01-13 11:16 +1100

csiph-web