Re: As a "general rule"?
- From: Nobody Here <nobby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 18 Oct 2006 12:27:37 GMT
rickman <gnuarm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
What does a requirement mean when it is stated as a "general rule"?
I find it amazing that engineers who's entire job is dealing with specs
and requirements and hard facts will generate a formal requirement that
"handbook xyz be followed as a general rule".
They have taught us that a requirement should be unambiguous and
testable. I find this type of requirement to be neither. Anyone else
find this sort of irrational behaviour in engineers?
There is nothing rational about making everything a requirement and
not including any suggestions/guidelines. Nor would it be rational
to insist that those suggestions/guidelines be treated as requirements.
I don't agree at all. But just for the sake of argument, why do you
Because not everything in a specification is necessarily a requirement.
I'd like you to write a progam in C that prints hello world (a requirement)
and I'd like you to write it in accordance with these coding standards
as a general rule. That recognises that the coding standards may not
apply to every eventuality in the code you produce, but they should
be taken as a guideline.
I design pieces of electronics that have a specification as to how they
should behave in detail, but part of that is the "general rule" that
they should be built in a manner that is safe and employs good design
and construction practices. That's usually an unspoken "general rule"
but it's there, none the less. It would not be possible for a specification
to detail the every last thing I should do to ensure that, much of it
has to be left to my technical and professional competence.
- Prev by Date: Re: Signal strength at some fixed frequency
- Next by Date: Re: OSS or Free RTOS recommendations?
- Previous by thread: Re: As a "general rule"?
- Next by thread: Re: As a "general rule"?