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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c30d9137a672c74d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: crawley@dstc.edu.au (Stephen Crawley)
Subject: Re: Ada95 for Windows 95 Reviewers Wanted
Date: 1996/03/26
Message-ID: <4j82te$2am@azure.dstc.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144319505
references: <01BB15A1.A55A5820@janusada.msn.fullfeed.com>
 <DoMsF5.5py.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <4ivkd2$gkp@azure.dstc.edu.au>
 <dewar.827590178@schonberg>
organization: CRC for Distributed Systems Technology
reply-to: crawley@dstc.edu.au
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In an earlier article, I wrote:
>>"I'm in no position to judge whether or not RR's bindings are of good
>>quality, but I think that my point is a valid one anyway.  The Ada
>>user community would not be well served by having lots of mutually
>>incompatible W95 binding products.  I would hope that the Ada
>>community is now mature enough to strongly resist such a trend!"

In article <dewar.827590178@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I disagre with the sentiment here. Ther is no point in standardizing
>thick bindings of low quality.

I agree with that.

I guess my original message was not clear.  The point I was trying to
make was that other manufacturers should >>consider<< adopting RR's
bindings as an interim standard.

If RR's bindings are "no good" [ ... I have no data ... ] then it
would not serve anyone's purposes to standardise on them, and the
consideration process should be a simple one [:-)]

OTOH, if RR's bindings are "good" or even "half-way good", they could
and possibly should serve as an interim defacto standard.

Either way, making the package spec's public domain is a good first
step.

-- Steve