> 1) Have exactly one Canonical representation. We need some consensus on what
> this should look like.
Yes. A problem! My suggestion was a variant of this, that would allow
a configurable and BOUNDED set of representations.
> 2) Assemble all the relevant standards and some how support them. We need a
> comprehensive list of these standards and mappings from all language types
> to the standard(s) types.
No chance, I am afraid. The official standard in this area (ISO) has died
from lack of support, and there are dozens of less formal standards to
confuse the issue once we allow more than IEEE etc.
> 3) Target a large number of native machine types and provide translation on
> input and output. We need syntax and semantics on how to make this happen.
> I think the multiple language mappings can make this messy.
It isn't any harder than (2), but it could be a political catastrophe.
If a vendor is left out, it then gives them an incentive to oppose the
I/O chapter IN ITS ENTIRETY. This sort of politics has killed more
standards than I can think of.
> 4) Have a small number of External representations. We need a consensus on
> how many and what they should look like.
Essentially a configurable form of (1). It could be done.
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email: nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679