There you go thinking logically again Pat...
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Patrick O'Keefe wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:56:05 -0500, William H. Blair
> wrote:
>
> >... The problem for us
> >was that we could not invoke the binder API as we assumed we
> >would be able to, and the reason h
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:56:05 -0500, William H. Blair
wrote:
>... The problem for us
>was that we could not invoke the binder API as we assumed we
>would be able to, and the reason had to do with restrictions
>that originate in LE. For our application, that was a pretty
>clear-cut issue ... "Y
Paul Gilmartin asks:
> In what language is the binder written?
As far as I know, PL/X. But the binder itself is not actually
the problem. It's the C/C++ / LE-dependent routines that the
binder [API] invokes; they are the cause of the entanglements
that the binder [API] suffers from, apparently. A
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:00:22 -0500, William H. Blair wrote:
>
>
>Now, granted, the binder could be rewritten in another
>language that did not require LE, such as (dare I say
>it?!) Assembler. That, along with a better functional
>interface, could make it truly useful, even amazing.
>
In what langu
Bill Klein reminds us:
> ... but I *do* repeat that unless/until the SHARE
> requirement process is "tried" for such things, it
> seems wrong to me to assume that it will NEVER work.
No "assumptions" are involved. A higher authority has
already been appealed to. IBM STL was, itself, at one
point
"Chris Craddock" wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Bill Klein
wrote:
>
> Bill K... this is a can of worms best left unopened. Suffice to say Bill
> Blair's commentary is not actually a rant at all, but is based entirely on
> his own (and my own) direct personal exper
6 matches
Mail list logo
