nitpicky grammar thing.

[zwol]

In my dialect of English, the word shall can only be used in the imperative and in fixed idioms.

1. Implementations shall not truncate lines.
2. You shall report to Main Barracks at 0800 tomorrow.
3. A person who shall remain nameless.

Those are fine, but this is not:

4. *Normally, the program shall install itself in /usr/local/bin.

Star. Boldface, blinking, day-glo, 72-point star. If you are predicting future events based on present actions or conditions, and no volitional actor is involved, the grammar in my head absolutely requires will, no exceptions, no mercy. Volitional actors are only okay to the extent that the sentence can be construed as imperative:

5. All enlisted men shall obey the chain of command, but must refuse unlawful orders and may object to unwise ones. (military regulations)
6. ?Normally, the teenagers shall go for walks as they see fit. (Instructions to house-sitter?)

Of course I wouldn't be grumping about this on LiveJournal if it were a hypothetical. There is a person who consistently uses shall where I would write will in situations like (4) above. In documentation, which I have to read. Because he does this so consistently, I have to consider the possibility of his dialect sanctioning shall for that sort of prediction. Various online sources address the general shall-vs-will question but do not speak to this particular point, that I can find.

Thus, the question, O my readers: Can you name a dialect that allows or requires shall in (4), and if you were editing formal written English, would you substitute will?