NICE-ESG-Libs Digest Mon, 13 Nov 95 Volume 1 : Issue 303
Today's Topics:
NICE-ESG-Libs Digest V1 #299
NICE Eiffel Standards Group -- Library Committee Mailing List
To post to list:
NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com
To send mail to the Chairman of the committee:
NICE-ESG-Libs-chair@atlanta.twr.com
Administrative matters (sign up, unsubscribe, mail problems, etc):
NICE-ESG-Libs-request@atlanta.twr.com
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 11:13:39 -0500
From: jcm@mstr.hgc.edu
Subject: NICE-ESG-Libs Digest V1 #299
To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com
> From root@atlanta.twr.com Thu Nov 9 08:43:04 1995
> Reply-To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com
> Subject: NICE-ESG-Libs Digest V1 #299
> To: NICE-ESG-Libs---DO-NOT-REPLY-TO-THIS-ADDRESS@atlanta.twr.com
> Content-Length: 2625
> X-Lines: 69
>
>
> NICE-ESG-Libs Digest Thu, 9 Nov 95 Volume 1 : Issue 299
>
> Today's Topics:
> Refinement of ELS
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> NICE Eiffel Standards Group -- Library Committee Mailing List
>
> To post to list:
> NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com
> To send mail to the Chairman of the committee:
> NICE-ESG-Libs-chair@atlanta.twr.com
> Administrative matters (sign up, unsubscribe, mail problems, etc):
> NICE-ESG-Libs-request@atlanta.twr.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 15:51:54 GMT
> >From: Roger Browne
> Subject: Refinement of ELS
> To: NICE-ESG-Libs@atlanta.twr.com
>
> Fellow Libraries Committee members,
>
> Jacob Gore wrote:
> > If nobody has brought up this before, could you let the libraries folks
> > know that in STD_FILES, read_word is mentioned in the comment for
> > last_string, but not listed as a feature?
>
> Jacob joins the list of people who have taken the time and made the
> effort to report inconsistencies in ELS95, and to highlight possible
> refinements.
>
> Christine, I ask again whether you will allow such issues to be discussed
> and voted on as small incremental changes to the standard. I know that your
> preference is for the committee to ratify coherent sets of changes rather
> than to discuss and vote on small incremental ones, but urgent action is
> needed if ELS95 is not to become the laughing stock of O-O standards.
> Although its adoption was a significant milestone, from a technical point of
> view there are many holes and much scope for improvement.
>
> If, like the previous set of changes, this work is being done outside
> committee and will be presented for ratification, please assure us that
> comments from Jacob and others are being noted, and that the work is being
> treated as highly urgent.
As many of you will recall I presented a fully specified version of the
ARRAY class to this group some months ago. Given the lack of discussion
in this forum (except for Roger - thanks again, Roger!), I made personal
pleas to folks at ISE, Tower, and SiG for input. We have had slow but productive
discussions that have resulted in some changes to my proposal. For example,
once all the implementers read the rigorous specification of "resize" it
became clear that there were two very different implementations of the
English comment that was the only previous "specification".
We have since discovered a similar problem with "make_from_array". As this
seems to be the last remaining problem, I had hoped to wait for its resolution
before coming back to the full Committee. Once it comes back to Committee
here's the way I'd like things to proceed.
1. Somebody move its acceptance as a whole. I think it is necessary to
look at the class in its entirety in order to ensure coherence. Also,
I can't make the motion myself as I am not a member of the Committee. (I'm
allowed to post on this one issue by Christine's kind sufferance.)
2. Set a deadline by which time amendments are to be proposed. Allowing
the proposal, discussion, and voting on amendments is only good parliamentary
practice, and it addresses Roger's concern about considering incremental
changes. For the moment I'd like to see these amendments limited in
scope. e.g. My goal is to rigorously specify what's already in ELKS
and I'd like to see the amendments similarly constrained. If we start
suggesting lots of new features
or lots of changes in semantics I fear we'll get sidetracked. There'll be
plenty of time for more widely ranging amendments _after_ we have a
rigorous specification in place.
3. Once the amendments have been dealt with, vote on the full motion.
[..]
>
> > By the way, what happens to all this stuff that gets forwarded to the
> > standards committees? Is it eventually voted on?
>
> If only this were the case!
I have noted Jacob's suggestions on STRING, which is the next specification
I want to bring before the Committee.
>
> Regards,
> Roger
> --
> -- Roger Browne, 6 Bambers Walk, Wesham, PR4 3DG, UK | Ph 01772-687525
> -- Everything Eiffel: compilers/libraries/publications | +44-1772-687525
>
> ==================================================
>
> End of NICE-ESG-Libs Digest
> ******************************
>
Best,
-- Jim
 |
