chidsey@smoke.BRL.MIL (Irving Chidsey ) (09/22/89)
In article <BILL.89Sep20094249@hcx3.ssd.harris.com> bill@ssd.harris.com (Bill Leonard) writes:
<
<I think your proposal turns the process upside-down. Vendor extensions
<should be the "proving ground" for language evolution. Only when a
<language feature has proven to be: 1) implementable; 2) widely used; and 3)
<portable to at least some degree, should it be standardized. I have no
<objection to standardizing extensions, once they have proven to be useful,
<for those extensions that are used by a small segment of users. But I
<don't think the standardization should come first; first one must prove
<that the perceived need does in fact exist, and that there are no serious
<impediments to implementation.
<--
<Bill Leonard
Amen! Let the extensions be tried in the marketplace, and only go with
the ones that gather a following.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication.
Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>