From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 11 Dec 92 12:39:01 GMT From: sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!tilde.csc.ti.com!mksol!mccall@ames.arc. nasa.gov (fred j mccall 575-3539) Subject: Re: How badly will C bias in the POSIX standards groups hurt Ada bindi ngs? Message-ID: <1992Dec11.123901.22406@mksol.dseg.ti.com> List-Id: In <62711@mimsy.umd.edu> alex@cs.umd.edu (Alex Blakemore) writes: >How much do you want to bet that the language independent specification >(when it appears in several millenia) looks almost identical to the current >C bindings? That ISO wouldnt dream of having the C bindings change more than >a couple of commas so that they dont upset the C POSIX users, but that they >wont think twice of asking (nay telling) the Ada community to completely chang e >our bindings to conform to their views? (after all, they are not the ones who >have to use the damn things) Actually, given that POSIX is based on UNIX and UNIX is built out of and around C, I would be surprised if they selected something that is too far from C for a specification language. It's simply a better fit for what is being specified. Personally, I dislike the idea of 'thin' bindings -- all that having to cross-reference back and forth seems to amount to throwing a roadblock in front of anyone trying to use the Standard. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.