🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume)

In article <1hdndfINNi52@ftp.UU.NET>, stephe@mks.com (Stephen Walli) writes:
> 1. I haven't seen your spec (and I know its electronically available :-)  
>    but how big is it wrt POSIX.1?  I think size and scope has a lot to 
>    do with some of the problems in POSIX. 

	the spec all up is 120-odd pages, including system requirements etc.
so it is maybe a third of 9945-1 and some infinitesimal fraction of 1003.2.
the size is a second order effect, i think; the thing that hurts you most
is the precision you need, and the need to cover a bunch of extent systems.

> 2. I found the two book/two context problem really hurts usability.
>    ( I don't believe this is the simple publishing problem some people 
>     think it is.)  Are their similar concerns with your spec? 

	nup. we were smart enough to insist on the 5 parts of our spec
being published together as a single volume. and another standard being
done at the same time which uses two of our parts verbatim is also
including those two parts in their volume for mainly readability issues.

> 3. How many language bindings are there to your LIS? And what languages 
>    are they? 

	As we are a format standard, and not an application interface standard,
we have no languages as such. however, specific descriptor formats are
analogous to languages; we include one such binding (that is, one set of
descriptors) in the standard. (as an example, i know of some work on
another binding with rather different performance characteristics.)

> 4. Have you seen the current POSIX.1/LIS and POSIX.16 C-binding? 
>    If so, what did you think?

	regrettably, not for some time. is it possible to get something
electronic?


			andrew hume


Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 95