>From [log in to unmask] Fri Apr  3 11:07:46 1998
>
>I'd like to underscore the importance of the above demonstration by
>pointing out that it confirms *two* significant milestones:
>
>1) In general, as Currie indicates, it shows the completeness of ASIS
>itself, proving that no Ada 95 syntactic element has been overlooked
>in the specification.
>
>2) In particular, it shows that at least one specific implementation
>(ASIS-for-GNAT) can pass this aspect of the ACVC suite, thus setting a
>precedent for other ASIS implementations to follow.
>
>Regarding the latter: It has long been a concern of mine that, while
>compilers provide a level of confidence via the ACVC suite, *other* Ada
>tools do not (e.g., for code analysis, documentation generation, coding
>standards support, metrics, code browsing, reverse engineering, etc);
>consequently, the quality of these tools has often been uneven. My hope
>is that ASIS implementations (upon which such tools can be built) will
>find it necessary to advertise their success with demonstrations like
>the one above, thereby raising the level of integrity in Ada tools of
>the future.
>

My congratulations to Sergey, Alfred, and the ASIS-for-GNAT team!

I've spoken to Sergey about making the ASIS test sources and harness
available so the other ASIS implementations can follow suit.  Hopefully,
that will happen soon.  This will be a huge step toward an ASIS verification
suite.

The ASIS implementation for Aonix' ObjectAda is ready to make use of this
method.  The ASIS for ObjectAda implementation has successfully integrated
the ASIS-for-GNAT implementation of the Traverse_Element procedure, further
raising confidence in ASIS portability and completeness.

ASIS momentum is building!


Steve Blake
Aonix