On 07/20/2012 12:56 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:53:55PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
[...]
The DWARF Committee does give any assurances that any proposal will be
accepted, or that any proposal will be accepted without modification.
[...]
That makes sense.
As Ian mentioned, when I indicated "Should be OK", that is not an
assurance that the assignment of a value for DW_LANG_Go would be
accepted as proposed, only that I thought that it was likely. [...]
Would the committee consider a faster-track number-assignment process,
kind of like IANA, for proposals that do not constitute material
structural changes to DWARF, but mere non-conflicting assignment of
magic numbers?
We don't want to have competing and conflicting standards procedures.
We have a simple low-overhead standards process. Adding a fast-track
process would increase the complexity and increase overhead (i.e., my
time), and might lead to the awkward situation where the fast-track
consideration of a proposal and a more deliberative one disagree.
A proposal which has been approved by the committee (as shown on our
website) has a very high likelihood of being incorporated into the
released standard as written. That's not a guarantee, though.
We encourage people to use the DWARF extension facility whenever possible,
rather than trying to anticipate future specifications.
--
Michael Eager [email protected]
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
_______________________________________________
Dwarf-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
