Re: Standard Library Interest?

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
>  >
>  > You really don't want to ask the ARG.  We have a specific role under
>  >  WG9, and if this was made a NWI (new work item), it might be
>  > assigned to some other RG, probably one set up for the purpose.
>  >
> It can live under any group you like so long as there is some sort of
> agreed-upon acceptance from the vendors and anyone else that matters
> that somehow or other this is going to be distributed with Ada compilers.

I believe this will happen as a natural consequence of doing this
important work. The vendor won't want to incurr extra work, unless
there is some wild advantage to them doing so.

I believe that this effort merely needs to organize the naming
conventions such that it is not likely to stomp on some existing
vendor naming convention. Surely industry experience can steer
us away from most of these problem areas without waiting for
vendors?

>  > That's why I suggested keeping the focus on the first level naming.
>  > The actual source could be public domain, copyrighted under various
>  > terms, or even licensed for big bucks.  But having a central
>  > repository of names would insure that conflicts did not arise.
>  >
> Before charging off and starting a library tree of names even, I'd like
> to see what sort of requirements and/or organization the vendors would
> like to have. What would make such a project acceptable to them? What do
> they want in it? How would they want it played out? Names are relatively
> easy to hammer out. Once you know what sort of things the vendors want,
> you create a tree of names that lines up with that and get everybody to
> say O.K. Assuming its under control of some editor/publisher and you
> want to get a statistics library in there, you talk to the editor and if
> he agrees, he gives you a branch name to work under.

I think you are on a different fork then some of the others in this
thread are on. You are looking at the (1) "what do we & and vendors
want in functionality?"

There are others that are saying (2) "I have this to offer, but where should
I put it (name it)?"

Both issues need to be dealt with. The easiest way to get started is
to address the naming conventions, and this should naturally address
#2 as a consequence, and work towards the issue #1 as it progresses.

But I would suggest, that we do not wait for the vendors to do
something. I think this was the whole point of the idea in this
thread. Baby steps: let's at least get the egg made, and hope
that a chicken shows up later. ;-)

Warren.