From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-06 16:45:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F81FE80.50900@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? References: <3F803278.1020507@noplace.com> <3F816F2F.1010407@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 23:45:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.24.173 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1065483920 209.165.24.173 (Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:45:20 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:45:20 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:347 Date: 2003-10-06T23:45:20+00:00 List-Id: 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 ======================================================================