Davide Bolcioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The concept seems very interesting to me, although I wonder if it is > within the scope of LSB; I had the notion that its effort was > concerned with standardizing existing development approaches.
Probably it's not [it being TenDRA]. On the other hand, having available tools for checking conformance with LSB would be valuable. > On the other hand, however, the above approach as far as I can see > does not address one of my major concerns, namely the fact that in a > library function there is more than the signature. Absolutely. As a trivial example: what does malloc(0) return? I suppose what my real point was: if the open source culture was such that it was normal to provide a reasonably abstract declaration of APIs to libraries, then probably people would want to specify their semantics too. (But the semantics would be informal, I suspect. After all, how could it practically be otherwise?) I'm not really suggesting that TenDRA provides anything really compelling. It provides a syntax that's a bit more abstract that ordinary C header files, and some nice tools for fiddling with these files.