Re: Standard Library Interest?

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

But therein lies two problems: One is that for something to meet 
"acceptable" criteria for the ARM, it has to have behavior detailed in 
painstaking language that makes it verifiable. (A reference 
implementation does not) The other is that the APIWG contains in its 
name "API". They'd only be spelling out an "Interface" (in painstaking 
detail) and its "Every Man For Himself" - which creates a barrier to 
getting it done.

I still think a "Conventional" library that might migrate parts to the 
ARM eventually would be a good thing. A reference implementation 
provides near instant access for the vendor with little effort to 
support it. If they've got to build a thing from bottom-dead-center and 
test it against a validation suite, it won't get done. At least not to 
the extent it ought to be done.

Some middle ground must exist....

MDC



Martin Dowie wrote:
> 
> I guess they will only form part of each RM every 10 years or so, but
> that doesn't mean the APIWG could provide some sort of "official
> status" to an API at any time in between.
> 
> The problem with API developments is (apparently) getting them
> defined in RM-eze.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================