🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com) wrote:
> In article <45bv4n$a2e@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> kennel@msr.epm.ornl.gov writes:

> > Why go through the effort of making a standard library, along with
> > academically funded widely available reference implementations, without a 
> > peep on the most minimal provisions for safety?

> Because the committee received no concrete proposals for such a library.

That's a good reason.  Did the people who put forth the request for proposals
mention "ability to perform safety checks if desired" as an area that was
suitable to address?

I think it's an empirically evident fact that safety issues were not a major
concern of the 'powers-that-were', which I feel is unfortunate. 

If it were otherwise, the original request would have said something about
safety or the committee would have rejected or modified proposals due to
their failure to address such questions.

cheers
Matt