From: noc.near.net!inmet!spock!stt@uunet.uu.net (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: How badly will C bias in the POSIX standards groups hurt Ada bindi
Date: 10 Dec 92 16:04:23 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1992Dec10.160423.18972@inmet.camb.inmet.com> (raw)
I just wanted to reiterate a point that might have
been buried in Jim Lonjer's excellent response.
"Thick" means self-contained, whereas "Thin" means
defined in terms of the semantics specified in a
language-independent standard (LIS).
"Thin" does *not* imply a direct, C-like interface (e.g.
use of status parameters rather than exceptions, no private
types, etc.).
So really the whole thick vs. thin issue comes down to
timeliness/availability of an LIS binding (which is a *big* issue),
and convenience for the reader of the standard (you need two
documents instead of one, and good cross-reference skills).
The convenience issue can be overcome somewhat by creation of
an unofficial "combination" (thick) document, which enterprising
book authors will hopefully produce in a timely fashion.
Thick vs. thin has *no* inherent effect on the abstractness or Ada-ness
of the binding.
Here is the relevant part from Jim's response ...
In article <1992Dec10.121345.4095@gvl.unisys.com>
lonjers@prc.unisys.com (Jim Lonjers) writes:
[lots of good stuff]
> . . .
>The plan is that it will not ``pervert'' the binding. The terms ``thick''
>and ``thin'' deserve some more precise terminology. The terms that many of
>us have adopted is ``fully specified'' vs. ``referential'' and primarily
>refers to the form of the published document, rather than the technical
>content of the binding.
>
>Another aspect of this is the ``direct'' vs. ``abstract'' binding problem.
>A direct binding is one which mimics the base document as closely as
>possible, while an abstract binding exploits the host language as much as
>possible while meeting the requirements of the base document. (Define your
>own level of abstraction for this one.)
>
>There is very little support for direct bindings. The current POSIX Ada
>strategy -- being applied to the POSIX Ada Real Time standards effort
>(P1003.20) is to develop a thin, abstract binding (again, no definition of
>how abstract is ``abstract'').
S. Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02138
next reply other threads:[~1992-12-10 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1992-12-10 16:04 Tucker Taft [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1992-12-11 13:52 How badly will C bias in the POSIX standards groups hurt Ada bindi agate!spool.mu.edu!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!mars.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu!larry
1992-12-11 12:39 fred j mccall 575-3539
1992-12-10 12:13 Jim Lonjers
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox