home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: brnstnd@KRAMDEN.ACF.NYU.EDU (D. J. Bernstein)
-
- Scott E. Preece writes:
- > So you have to write a
- > standard that specifies things nobody specified before and you have to
- > try to merge different versions of the same functionality.
-
- Ah, but you never _have_ to write a standard.
-
- You see that systems vary widely in, e.g., the output format of ``who'',
- and even the type of information stored in /etc/utmp (or whatever file
- ``who'' reads). Does this mean you have to apply your imagination,
- specify what the market hasn't specified, merge what the market hasn't
- merged? No. It's a very strong signal that standardization is premature.
- You shouldn't standardize ``who'' at all. Wait for market convergence.
-
- You see that the market has come to agree on what you are sure is bad
- practice. Does this mean you have to resist documenting that practice in
- a standard? No. It means that your conceptions of what's good and bad
- are out of sync with the market. Your responsibility as standards-writer
- is to document what's being done, not to dream up new solutions. ``Only
- those who code have the right to dream.'' If you can identify a
- technical flaw in the bad practice, go ahead and document that! If
- you're sure that you can make a better solution, try it on the market!
-
- ---Dan, still wondering why POSIX [:digit:] is better than Perl \d
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 37
-
-