Re: features

• To: chyde@BBN.COM, pkarp@Sunset.AI.SRI.COM
• Subject: Re: features
• From: Scott McKay <SWM@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
• Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 15:14 -0400
• Cc: clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: The message of 28 Oct 1993 14:33 EDT from chyde@BBN.COM

    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1993 14:33 EDT
    From: chyde@BBN.COM

    perhaps we/someone should devise a "trip test" to designate what
    constitutes meeting the spec for each version...recent messages
    suggest vendors have already deviated from each other.

The fact that there are slightly divergent implementations does not
imply the any particular implementation doesn't comply with the spec.
That is, in any large software system, a compliant implementation may
still have bugs, features that are extensions, niceties in defaulting
behavior, and so forth.

That isn't to say that such a "trip test" wouldn't be useful.  But there
are a lot of other factors to consider...

    the combination should render achieving portability lots easier. of
    course, that begs the question of how badly we need portability...

• Prev: PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME
• Next: MCL CLIM 1.1 bug: define-presentation-type compiler error
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jan-93 to 31-May-94)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jan-93 to 31-May-94)