Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!pitt!willett!ForthNet
From: ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: ANS TC Magnet for Mass Storage
Message-ID: <2849.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 4 Jun 91 02:41:03 GMT
Organization: (n.) to be organized.  But that's not important right now.
Lines: 34

Category 10,  Topic 15
Message 24        Sun Jun 02, 1991
R.BERKEY [Robert]            at 22:12 PDT
 
  Mitch Bradley writes, 91-05-28,

 > > Re: disentitling BLOCK .  The nominal rationale that embedded
 > > systems don't necessarily need source code doesn't wash.  The
 > > existence of embedded systems that don't allow source code doesn't
 > > in any way change the existence of programs that _are_ source code.
 >
 > Presumably, embedded systems that do not allow source code will
 > succeed or fail based on the market acceptance of their overall
 > value.  There are some people (I am not one of them) who are
 > adamantely opposed to even saying that if you have files, then you
 > must have blocks too.  For a good argument, call Jack Brown.  This
 > battle have been fought at least 3 times, and I doubt that anybody's
 > mind is going to change at this stage.

The issue of blocks versus files is not the issue.

At issue is the rationale for this proposed change.  An existence of internal
committee debates is not a rationale for making changes.

At issue is that X3.J14 proposes a change that a "Standard Program" cannot be
source code.  It's not clear that this proposal has an interpretation.

Robert

-----
This message came from GEnie via willett.  You *cannot* reply to the author
using e-mail.  Please post a follow-up article, or use any instructions
the author may have included (USMail addresses, telephone #, etc.).
Report problems to: dwp@willett.pgh.pa.us _or_ uunet!willett!dwp