🚀 go-pugleaf

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