Eric W. Biederman
01 Jan 1999 14:29:02 -0600
>>>>> "LM" == Laurent Martelli <email@example.com> writes:
>>>>> "Brian" == RE01 Rice Brian T EM2 <BRice@vinson.navy.mil> writes:
Brian> more specifics:
LM> [ specs ... ]
Brian> is this the kind of specification that you want?
LM> I didn't ask for specifications, but I think that these are too low
LM> level. In fact, they are implementation specifications. And I think
LM> that we first need to specify what something should allow us to do
LM> before trying to see how to implement it. It seems a bit early to talk
LM> about pointers, memory chunks all that stuff.
LM> In fact, I think that we should first specify our needs, and then see
LM> how we can build something that can fullfill them.
I think the specification has been mostly done on the tunes web pages,
it needs to be codified so everyone can see them, and so we can judge any
designs to see if they fulfill those requirements however, allowing to
fix the designs.
My guess is we need a spec for the arrow language, and
then a second spec that says how the arrow language and other parts
will fit into tunes.
And we definitenly need to do it in a semiformalized process so tunes can
I'm committed to making the process appear. Anything else is a case
of time will tell.
For now any spec you think you can write for tunes I'd love to see it