Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #28097

Re: Hayes tester fails

Show all headers | View raw

on 25/01/2014 11:53:31, "Ed" wrote:
> Alex McDonald wrote:
>> ...
>> Anton says; if there is text (what other standards call normative text)
>> and tests (or non-normative text) and the two disagree, then the
>> normative text takes precedence.
> 
> Anton Ertl wrote:
> > ...
> > 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. So test cases in Forth are a
> way of > formally specifying a part of what is intended.
> 
> It states tests in 200x are formally part of the specification because
> natural language is inadequate. We are informed it has to do with
> infinite monkey theorem.

I don't follow you here, since you have provided quotes snipped from
other posts.

I would state quite clearly; tests may or may not be normative. The
latest version of the standard states;

1.3.2 Annexes
The annexes do not contain any required material.
..
Annex F presents a test suite to test the operation of a system complies
with the definitions documented in this standard.

This places the tests in Annex F in the category of non-normative.

> 
> Never mind that a test can never be a specification (a test is a tool
> created from an existing well-defined specification).

Here you're just flat out wrong. I'm on several standards bodies, and
none of them hobbles themselves in that way. For instance, see Scheme
(http://www.r6rs.org/) or CDMI
(http://snia.org/sites/default/files/CDMI%20v1.0.2.pdf) where examples
are normative parts of the specification.

> 
> What it's really about, is a guy who got caught out using tests in a
> Standard while attempting to ridicule others' use of tests - and
> getting himself deeper in shit. I wouldn't be caught dead defending
> him, but if that suits your agenda, feel free to bury yourself in the
> same hole.

It could be a reasoned discussion, but you have to make an effort.

What it's really about is that the tests haven't AFAIK been proposed and
agreed as normative. There will be compliant systems that won't be able
to run them at all, since (a) the standard doesn't require it and (b) the
tester requires optional parts of the specification such as [IF] et al
from the TOOLS EXT wordset.

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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