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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2106dd704b99f22c,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-15 10:55:15 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!blanket.mitre.org!linus.mitre.org!linus!mbunix!emery From: emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC DIS 8652 and ISO/IEC DIS 14519-1 Date: 15 Sep 94 08:48:10 Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Message-ID: References: <19940915.5134@naggum.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: goldfinger.mitre.org In-reply-to: Erik Naggum's message of 15 Sep 1994 05:27:53 UT Date: 1994-09-15T08:48:10+00:00 List-Id: Erik raises some interesting questions. As a member of the POSIX/Ada committee (and also WG9), let me answer them. First, some history: 1. Because of politics relating to 'language independence', ISO would NOT accept the submission of the POSIX/Ada binding (IEEE Project P1003.5) or POSIX/Fortran binding (IEEE Project P1003.9) under the same terms as the C binding/POSIX interface definition (IEEE Project P1003.1). 2. Therefore, the C binding became ISO 9945.1:1989 (relatively) concurrent with its approval by IEEE as IEEE Std 1003.1-1990. 3. POSIX/Ada became IEEE Std 1003.5-1992 (and FORTRAN IEEE Std 1003.9-1992) independent of any ISO actoin. 4. After approval of IEEE Std 1003.5-1992 (in 1992 :-), we then proposed ISO JTC1 fast-track of the IEEE POSIX/Ada standard. After some coordination and a consultative letter ballot by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22 which concurred (with comments), we then forwarded the document to the JTC1 secretariat for fast-track standardization. At the same time, the IEEE started work on a amendment project for POSIX/Ada, both to fix some known defects and also to handle any comments from the ISO ballot. 5. Somewhere in ISO, this document got lost. We got it back on track this year. (Thus, we lost a full year in the balloting cycle.) Now, the real technical question is: Does POSIX/Ada have value for Ada9X? The answer (IMHO) is "Yes". The POSIX/Ada standard is upwards compatable with Ada9X. The only 9X issue is the use of interrupt entries for signal handlers, a feature declared obsolete in Ada9X. Other than that, the Ada83 binding is completely consistent with Ada9x. Furthermore, there has been a lot of interest in this standard, and I think it's important that we get the I.S. out ASAP. Finally, we are currently working on the POSIX/Ada Real-Time binding. The way POSIX standards work, this is a revision to the existing POSIX/Ada binding. We're explicitly considering Ada9X in this work. There are some places in the current POSIX/Ada (IEEE Std 1003.5-1992) standard that I would like to 'change' to take advantage of Ada9X features. It's possible that we'll propose a revision of the entire POSIX/Ada document to take better advantage of Ada9X in the future, but for now, the POSIX/Ada binding is very usable from Ada9X. In short, vote "yes". Dave Emery (P1003.5 Technical Editor and Interpretations Vice-Chair) -- --The preceeding opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of --The MITRE Corporation or its sponsors. -- "A good plan violently executed -NOW- is better than a perfect plan -- next week" George Patton -- "Any damn fool can write a plan. It's the execution that gets you -- all screwed up" James Hollingsworth -------------------------------------------------------------------------