Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Robert C. Leif wrote:

> Unfortunately, except for a talk by David Wheeler, there was no desire
> from the ARG or WG9 or mention of "to make programming in Ada easier"
> except for the OO paradigm. David Wheeler suggested adding a With and
> Use Clause. This would allow one to write the package name only once.
> Although I do not like the presence of a Use clause at the beginning
> of a package; I, at least, favor efficient sinning. I would complement
> this with a With and Renames Clause. With D renames A.B.C.D; Of even
> greater significance is the omission of the GNAT 'img. The use of 'img
> saves keyboarding and should make the sources easier to read.

Hmmm.  Let me start by pointing out that the ARG is charged with 
maintaining the Ada standard, not the A# or SPARK standards.  Having 
said that, we do try to consider ALL users of Ada, not just those who 
use an OO style.  Several of the extensions/improvements being 
considered for Ada 0Y will wind up in Annex D or Annex H.  Alan Burns 
can probably do a better job of describing these changes and how the 
mesh with SPARK and the Ravenscar profile.

As for "with and use" I did comment on that proposal here. 
Unfortunately I probably spent more time explaining why "use implies 
with" can't work, than discussing how to allow a "with and use" context 
clause.  The problem with "with implies use" has nothing to do with most 
  cases where users would want to use "with and use".  The problem is 
that some use clauses, even in context clauses, name units that cannot 
be withed.  Adding "with and use" to the language would not be a 
problem, changing "use" to mean "with and use" is a non-starter.

Incidently, I thought that "use all", also discussed in that thread 
would be much more useful as a language extension.  But I'm getting far 
from the original topic.

I think you will find that many of the extensions currently being 
considered for Ada 0Y will be of use to all Ada programmers, not just 
those who do OO programming.  Look at the thread about adding interfaces 
here. Yes, interfaces will help people who want to use MI or certain 
other styles of OO programming.  But it also makes some idioms that have 
nothing to do with OO programming easier.  In fact, interfaces make 
implementing all sorts of design patterns easier.

If you do think that it would help to have a "real" A# ISO standard, 
suggest that to WG9, and they can submit a new work item (NWI) to JTC1. 
  My expectation would be that a new RG would be set up to address the 
NWI, and there would be some overlap with the ARG.  But it would be a 
separate standard, and a separate RG.  Same for SPARK, except that I 
think that NWI would be handed to the HRG.

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

"The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, 
cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our 
perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- 
George W. Bush