home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
-
- In article <1nr0mmINNp22@ftp.UU.NET> karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) writes:
- >I don't see why Microsoft's POSIX.1-in-a-box implementation
- >should serve as an indictment of test methods standards.
-
- That wasn't my intent... I was simply pointing out an example of how a
- vendor can abuse a standard. Test method standards simply give many of
- them something else to abuse.
-
- >There's no reason to believe that it won't conform to the
- >letter of the POSIX.1 standard. It's not productive to
- >say "I know POSIX when I see it, and this ain't it".
-
- Again, that's putting words into my mouth. Yes, I'm sure it will satisfy
- POSIX.1 to the last jot and tittle. It won't be terribly *useful*, but
- that's not something that can be mandated by POSIX... it's a 'quality of
- implementation' issue.
-
- And leaving it to the marketplace isn't good enough, because the marketplace
- by and large doesn't care about POSIX other than as a check-mark on a PR
- form. If we leave it to the marketplace we're going to all be coding to the
- Win32 "standard".
-
- --
- Peter da Silva `-_-'
- Ferranti International Controls Corporation 'U`
- Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012 USA
- +1 713 274 5180 "Zure otsoa besarkatu al duzu gaur?"
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 31, Number 15
-
-