From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,174ec7dc941a1068
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Factory Pattern
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:56:48 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1185649008.149431.81240@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
References: <1185387571.367570.163160@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
   <YdSpi.39934$Fc.15226@attbi_s21>
   <1185432247.046242.24300@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
   <1185439242.28126.36.camel@kartoffel>
   <bik8e7qm7lmm$.1xu7du0o6xy5$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1185447702.28126.57.camel@kartoffel>
   <1185454958.105983.143570@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <f8b786$qpo$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
   <1185541668.089363.258220@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
   <f8dr4n$m84$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.3.126.41
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1185649008 10982 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2007 18:56:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 18:56:48 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <f8dr4n$m84$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060317 Firefox/1.5.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.3.126.41;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1242
Date: 2007-07-28T11:56:48-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 28 Lip, 00:23, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> However, the requirement for this support came down from above; essentially,
> if we wanted Ada to continue to be an ISO standard, we needed to add this
> sort of support. (New standards for other languages also will have to add
> this sort of support, or take their chances at having their standards fail.)
> Even so, we did consider not doing it, but there was enough interest from
> some countries that we felt that there was quite a bit of risk that the
> standard would fail if we didn't add this support.

This is a very interesting twist in this discussion. I wonder how will
the next standardization iteration go for C++ - this is supposed to
happen in the coming few years and no support for Unicode in the
source representation was ever considered.
Interesting, interesting...

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/