From baker@ada.cs.fsu.edu Tue Aug 6 21:24:12 1996 Received: from ada.cs.fsu.edu (ada.cs.fsu.edu [128.186.121.48]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id VAA28327 for ; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 21:24:08 +0200 Received: by ada.cs.fsu.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id TAA04947; Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:23:28 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:23:28 GMT Message-Id: <199608061923.TAA04947@ada.cs.fsu.edu> From: Ted Baker To: SC22WG15@dkuug.dk, wg15tag@pasc.org, iso@@ada.cs.fsu.edu, iso@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us Subject: Liason on PCTE/Ada work I am forwarding the following message, in my capacity as Liason between WG15 and WG9. Please note that the author (Minot) of this message is replying to a message originating from Dave Emery, which I received via the WG9 e-mail reflector and forwarded to the WG15 reflector. Minot seems to be under the misapprehension that I was the author of that message, rather than just the forwarder. Rather than reply to him myself, I passed his comments back to Dave Emery. Dave replied: | Well, John Dawes has been very/seriously ill lately, and he's | completely failed to accomplish any liaison with WG9. [It seems to me that this points out the inherent weakness of the human Liaison as a mechanism.] | My comments are even more applicable to WG15, since the major | incompatabilities are with POSIX.5, a WG15 product. Dave went on express further dismay at the apparently lack of concern within the PCTE group for harmonization with other functionally overlapping standards. Liaison from WG15 to WG9 Prof. Ted Baker Department of Computer Science [4109] Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306-4019 ___________________________________ phone: 904-644-5452 fax: 904-644-0058 e-mail: baker@cs.fsu.edu | From Regis.Minot@transtar.fr Tue Aug 6 17:45 EST 1996 | Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 19:04:45 +0200 | From: Regis Minot | To: baker@ada.cs.fsu.edu | Subject: Ada bindings of PCTE | Cc: sjd@peis.icl.co.uk, chris.brockway@ecma.ch, Regis.Minot@transtar.fr | Dear Mr Baker | I have received, via Keld Simonsen, aome critical comments that you have | recently made about Ada bindings of PCTE. | As there is a formal liaison between WG22 and WG9, I will first of all, | I am worried that you had not found any opportunity to report directly | to him the problems which you mention. The liaison officer is John Dawes. | I let him know anyway, your complaint. As he is also convenor of WG22, he | knows well all problems which have been already reported to WG22 on the ISO | PCTE binding of Ada and can tell you wether the problems that you are reporting | have been already passed to WG22. | The new bindings of PCTE is strictly aligned with the style of the ISO standard | 13719 part 3. There is in fact only two new small extensions of the PCTE standard | which have been made available in ADA: | - Fine Grain extensions | - OO Extensions | Both are PDAMs and have been made available for review to SC22 members. If you don't | have it, please tell me, I will send them to you. | You are proposing to recommend a NO vote to the members represented in WG9. That's | not very fair but you can do it if you really think that this is the best way to | promote the use of Ada. I would nevertheless appreciate if some more detailed | explanations concerning your criticisms were passed to us so that we have an | opportunity to justify our choices before you do that. I am particularily surprised | of your position as it is the first time I am informed of it. | It is true that PCTE has not the same success as POSIX and we never claimed the | contrary. Nevertheless, PCTE is not just academic as you say because there are | several concrete companies who use it on a day to day basis. Let me cite for | instance SNCF, RATP, Banque de France, Barclays, CDC, Royal Dutch Navy, NIST, ESA, | NIST, Bull, ICL, THomson, etc. | Best regards | Regis Minot | Convener ISO-IEC/JTC1 SC22W/G22