Subject: Re: New vote on SUAVE or Objective VHDL
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@pacbell.net)
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 19:01:54 PDT
Hi Bob.
Robert Klenke wrote:
>
> Folks,
> ...
> John Michael Williams wrote:
> [much other deleted]
> >
> > Let me amend my proposal: We vote as proposed. If a valid
> > choice emerges for one of the two prototypes, then the
> > requirements document for the choice will be reduced to a
> > draft standards document (or part of one) for OO VHDL,
> > and no further running code shall be presented to the group
> > unless to prove contradiction(s) within the standard.
> >
> > --
> > John
> > jwill@pacbell.net
> > John Michael Williams
>
> I believe that in Peter's original message calling for a second vote
> that the statement:
>
> > When considering the question, please bear in mind that the selected
> > proposal will serve as the starting point for the Working Group to
> > develop a Trial Use standard.
>
> mean exactly that, did it not? That's what I took it to mean.
>
> Bob
> . . .
Yes, the vote's purpose MIGHT be interpreted that way.
I'd still like some explicit committment to the
putting aside of coding of prototypes for the remainder
of the life of the group.
My reason is that so much of the recent year or two
has been occupied by implementation, I fear it will have
become the modus operandi of the group. We had maybe 100
interested parties sitting on the sidelines, and I guess
a half-dozen or fewer developers discussing their
programs. It would have been too much to chime in
with a suggested improvement, with the level of almost
total preexisting constraints. I don't think a language
implementation should be setting the rest of the agenda.
I can't see voting for either of the two alternatives,
if my vote were to be taken as an endorsement of
it as a future runnable implementation (language compiler).
Peter, I'd like to ask that you consider adding the
condition that our further OO standards
work will not include any more prototyping, unless
to prove a specific point of uncertainty. Until this
group is dissolved. What do you say?
--
John
jwill@pacbell.net
John Michael Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 19:34:15 PDT