Usenet 1994 January/usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso/sources/std_unix/volume.29/text0096.txt

Text File | 1992-12-26 | 1.7 KB | 37 lines

Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Chuck Karish)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Walli) writes:
>To give a real example: POSIX.4 (Real-time Extensions to POSIX.1) is almost
>done. It will go in front of the IEEE Standards Board in June. There are no
>test methods. To construct test methods, they should do so in an LIS form,
>plus C binding. But then the standard is not yet in LIS form. Plain old
>fashioned C. If I found out, as a poor individual programmer in the
>industry, that this useful specification was being withheld by the IEEE
>standards board because it didn't have this other thing (of NO value to
>me as programmer) called test methods, I would yell VERY LOUDLY at ANSI,
>which certifies the IEEE to produce standards.

Remember that a lot of the functionality in POSIX.4 is invented,
either extending what's in existing implementations or specifying
the behavior differently.

It will be even more important for this standard than for POSIX.1
and POSIX.2 to have agreed-upon test methods.

The fact that the IEEE Standards Board won't publish the standard yet
does nothing to prevent OS vendors from implementing the C binding,
and thus has little effect on the individual programmer's ability to
use its features.  The tradeoff, from the programmer's point of view,
is that the sooner test methods are agreed upon, the sooner it will
be possible to write portable code that can be expected to work on
all POSIX.4 systems that support the applicable option(s).  Language
independence is of lesser importance to C programmers, except as it
impedes the rest of the process.

--
Chuck Karish          [e-mail]
[phone] x117   [e-mail]

Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 96