home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN)
-
- >Submitted-by: ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)
-
- >In article <132258@uunet.UU.NET> andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) writes:
- >>I thought 1003.2 simply described stuff so you can use it, not implement it.
-
- >It was certainly my understanding that a formal standard like an ISO standard
- >must contain enough information that you could give it to a Martian who had
- >never even heard of, say, UNIX, let alone used it, but was otherwise well
- >versed in computer technology, and he/she/it should be able to write a
- >conforming implementation. Stronger yet, if something is not mentioned
- >in the standard, even if it perhaps should have been, implementers should
- >be free to include it or not include it at their own discretion.
-
- If there is a standard that simply describes how to use something, then
- you should be able to implement something conforming to that document,
- as long as what you end up with is usable in EXACTLY the same way.
- It may not give you any good ideas on how to go about it; that would
- be up to you. If you write it all as a simulated machine and OS in BASIC,
- and it works exactly as the user document describes, then it conforms
- (even if it is worthlessly slow, unless the document specifies how fast
- something has to work, and I doubt that).
- --
- /***************************************************************************\
- / Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Guns don't aim guns at \
- \ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks | people; CRIMINALS do!! /
- \***************************************************************************/
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 64
-
-