Re: Motion P1788/M0029.01: Level-3-interface-only --- Final version to vote on
> Subject: Re: Motion P1788/M0029.01: Level-3-interface-only --- Final version to vote on
> From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:02:26 +0000
> To: stds-1788 <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Baker, and all
>
> On 14 Dec 2011, at 23:37, Dan Zuras Intervals wrote:
> > . . .
> >
> > It is better to correct tortured prose than propagate it.
>
> The wording of this motion, and use of "type" vs "format" in particular,
> seem to have the thumbs-up from a number of experts, so I suggest we
> start the voting period.
Cool.
>
> John
>
> ----------
> P.S. Dan's words '... "format" as the layout in memory' aren't quite correct.
> ... "format" as what the Level 3 programmer sees is more correct.
>
> . . .
Fair enough.
I was thinking level 3 anyway.
Besides, assuming we provide a sufficiently rich set of
wrappers & extractors at levels 1 & 2, the user need never
look there anyway.
I know that guys who drive manual transmission cars will
look anyway.
I'm one of them.
But maybe we can provide proofs at the abstraction levels
some day & get them out of the habit.
It could happen. :-)
Dan