From: David Emery <demery@cox.net>
Subject: Re: More Florist.
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:55:24 -0500
Date: 2003-11-02T18:55:24-05:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <IPgpb.138816$a16.66721@lakeread01> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D_bpb.67113$9E1.283392@attbi_s52>
Jeff C, wrote:
...
> Well..It is following the POSIX standard so if there is a problem it is in
> the standard and (probably) not the
> implementation.
Does FLORIST claim to be a conforming POSIX/Ada implementation? If
not, I'd strongly prefer that it not imply conformance.
So either say it's "conforming" (which is clearly defined by the
standard), or say that it is "patterned on" or words to that effect
that make it clear that it is not claiming or implying conformance.
dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-11-02 23:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-11-02 4:44 More Florist Freejack
2003-11-02 6:38 ` Patrice Freydiere
2003-11-02 13:23 ` Jeff C,
2003-11-02 14:23 ` Freejack
2003-11-02 17:57 ` Freejack
2003-11-02 18:25 ` Jeff C,
2003-11-02 19:11 ` Freejack
2003-11-02 23:55 ` David Emery [this message]
2003-11-02 22:45 ` Mark Lorenzen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox