Re: Future of Linux (.so contracts)
Davide Bolcioni <email@example.com> 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