Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!CTC.CONTEL.COM!reid From: reid@CTC.CONTEL.COM (Tom Reid x4505) Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula2 Subject: Re: Re: Re: VDM & M2 Message-ID: <9002170200.AA01479@ctc.contel.com> Date: 17 Feb 90 02:00:01 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Modula2 List Organization: The Internet Lines: 18 Barry: This really concerns me. We are charged with producing a semanticly correct language standard and you say "It makes no sense for us to spend time formally defining the variant of VDM that we are using ...". If the people who are developing and approving the standard do not (cannot) understand the language that it is being defined in, then we are totally wasting our time. When VDM DOES stabilize and THERE IS a standard reference, THEN it is time to use it to formally define the language. Unless convinced otherwise, I am leaning toward voting against the standard with the VDM left in unless a "reasonable" description of EXACTLY the variant of VDM used is included in the standard. Why do I feel that I am acting out a scene of Alice in Wonderland? Cheers, Tom.