Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Jerry]

I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
When referring to the new standard and without referring to any
particular implementation of it, which is correct or preferred? I sort
of understand that the standard wasn't agreed to until 2007 but that
might not be the defining event. Is there an official designation or
are left to our own devices to call it what we want?

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Jerry writes:
> I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
> When referring to the new standard and without referring to any
> particular implementation of it, which is correct or preferred? I sort
> of understand that the standard wasn't agreed to until 2007 but that
> might not be the defining event. Is there an official designation or
> are left to our own devices to call it what we want?

Formally, it is "ISO/IEC 8652:1995(E) with Corrigendum 1 and Amendment
1".

Officially informally (!), it is "Ada 2005" because ARM 3.1/2 says so.
That is the result of a majority agreement between the members of the
working group, most of whom are compiler vendors.

Some people call it "Ada 2007" because the ISO formally approved and
published Amendment 1 in 2007.

Some people call it "Ada".

Some people call it "Amendment 1".

It doesn't really matter, except perhaps to marketeers.  Are there any
in the Ada business?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Stephen Leake]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Jerry writes:
>> I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
>> When referring to the new standard and without referring to any
>> particular implementation of it, which is correct or preferred? I sort
>> of understand that the standard wasn't agreed to until 2007 but that
>> might not be the defining event. Is there an official designation or
>> are left to our own devices to call it what we want?
>
> Formally, it is "ISO/IEC 8652:1995(E) with Corrigendum 1 and Amendment
> 1".

For a reference for these details, see
http://www.adaic.org/standards/ada05.html 

That page consistently calls the language "Ada 2005".

> Officially informally (!), it is "Ada 2005" because ARM 3.1/2 says so.
> That is the result of a majority agreement between the members of the
> working group, most of whom are compiler vendors.

Just being pedantic, I don't see that statement in ARM 3.1/2; that
paragraph doesn't exist; see
http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-1.html 

Perhaps you meant a different paragraph?

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Ludovic Brenta]

Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:
> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>> Officially informally (!), it is "Ada 2005" because ARM 3.1/2 says so.
>> That is the result of a majority agreement between the members of the
>> working group, most of whom are compiler vendors.
>
> Just being pedantic, I don't see that statement in ARM 3.1/2; that
> paragraph doesn't exist; see
> http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-1.html 
>
> Perhaps you meant a different paragraph?

Yes, I meant paragraph 3.1/2 in the Introduction, not paragraph 2 in
section 3.1.  See http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-0-3.html

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Stephen Leake]

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> writes:
>> Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
>>> Officially informally (!), it is "Ada 2005" because ARM 3.1/2 says so.
>>> That is the result of a majority agreement between the members of the
>>> working group, most of whom are compiler vendors.
>>
>> Just being pedantic, I don't see that statement in ARM 3.1/2; that
>> paragraph doesn't exist; see
>> http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-1.html 
>>
>> Perhaps you meant a different paragraph?
>
> Yes, I meant paragraph 3.1/2 in the Introduction, not paragraph 2 in
> section 3.1.  See http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-0-3.html

Ah. I thought paragraph numbers are not supposed to have decimal
points! But the introduction is weird anyway; it doesn't have a
section number. And there are more paragraphs with decimal points
later.

Typically, when refering to a paragraph, we use parens: 

    RM section (paragraph)

As the URL says, the introduction can be called section 0, so
I think the canonical reference to this paragraph is ARM 0 (3.1/2).

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Adam Beneschan]

On Nov 1, 4:16 am, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org>
wrote:
> Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> > Stephen Leake <stephen_le...@stephe-leake.org> writes:
> >> Ludovic Brenta <ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:
> >>> Officially informally (!), it is "Ada 2005" because ARM 3.1/2 says so.
> >>> That is the result of a majority agreement between the members of the
> >>> working group, most of whom are compiler vendors.
>
> >> Just being pedantic, I don't see that statement in ARM 3.1/2; that
> >> paragraph doesn't exist; see
> >>http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-1.html
>
> >> Perhaps you meant a different paragraph?
>
> > Yes, I meant paragraph 3.1/2 in the Introduction, not paragraph 2 in
> > section 3.1.  Seehttp://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-0-3.html
>
> Ah. I thought paragraph numbers are not supposed to have decimal
> points!

Paragraph numbers do have decimal points, if they were inserted
between paragraphs of the original Ada 95 standard, so that paragraphs
would not need to be renumbered unnecessarily.  This is true
throughout the whole manual, not just in the Introduction (and I
believe it was true even before Ada 2005, for paragraphs inserted by
an earlier Corrigendum).

                      -- Adam

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Brian Gaffney]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org> wrote in message 
news:uk5p25i72.fsf@stephe-leake.org...
> Typically, when refering to a paragraph, we use parens:
>
>    RM section (paragraph)
>
> As the URL says, the introduction can be called section 0, so
> I think the canonical reference to this paragraph is ARM 0 (3.1/2).
>
> -- 
> -- Stephe

Wouldn't that make the "Foreword to this version" end with ARM 0 (0.8/2), 
the "Foreword" begin ARM 0 (1), and the "Introduction" also begin ARM 0 (1)? 
Or would the forewords be Section -1 (and maybe -2)?  Or maybe we just 
ignore the issue :-).

            --Brian 

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[anon]

It may change, but as of today, there is only one vendor for Ada 2005 or 
Ada 2007 specs and that is Adacore's GNAT and GNAT PRO.

Adcore at the movement still refer the new standard as Ada 2005, in 
the press. Business Wire, March 7 2007 report that Adacore was the
first to market a "Full Ada 2005" version of Ada.

Actually though, the ISO.org defines the current form of Ada as

  "ISO/IEC 8652:1995/Amd 1:2007"

So I would say it should be "Ada 95 Amd 1:2007" or "Ada 2007" for 
short. ISO/IEC adopted the new standard in Jan 07. But for short term 
it is still refer by either name.


I am wondering in the next release, if Adacore will add the 
"pragma Ada_07" and keep "pragma Ada_05" for historical 
compatibility purposes, like they have done with "pragma Ada_83" 
and "pragma Ada_95". And also add command line option "-gnat07". 
In a few months we will see what Adacore has decided.


In <1193782578.950217.150590@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,  Jerry <lanceboyle@qwest.net> writes:
>I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
>When referring to the new standard and without referring to any
>particular implementation of it, which is correct or preferred? I sort
>of understand that the standard wasn't agreed to until 2007 but that
>might not be the defining event. Is there an official designation or
>are left to our own devices to call it what we want?
>

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Georg Bauhaus]

On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 00:05 +0000, anon wrote:

> So I would say it should be "Ada 95 Amd 1:2007"

Will Intel like this name? :-)

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Jerry]

On Oct 30, 3:16 pm, Jerry <lancebo...@qwest.net> wrote:
> I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
> When referring to the new standard and without referring to any
> particular implementation of it, which is correct or preferred? I sort
> of understand that the standard wasn't agreed to until 2007 but that
> might not be the defining event. Is there an official designation or
> are left to our own devices to call it what we want?

Thanks for your comments. On balance, things seem as confused as I had
feared.

Jerry

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Dirk Craeynest]

Jerry  <lanceboyle@qwest.net> wrote:

>On Oct 30, 3:16 pm, Jerry <lancebo...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
[...]
>> Is there an official designation or
>> are left to our own devices to call it what we want?
>
>Thanks for your comments. On balance, things seem as confused as I had
>feared.

This issue is very clear, but some postings here seem to be confused.

The internationally accepted recommendation to refer to the latest
Ada language definition is to use the informal name "Ada 2005".

See <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/f1cf1036a71fca56>

Dirk Craeynest, Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.be
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9, Head of Delegation, Belgium

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Markus E L]

> This issue is very clear, but some postings here seem to be confused.

> The internationally accepted recommendation to refer to the latest
> Ada language definition is to use the informal name "Ada 2005".
>
> See <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/f1cf1036a71fca56>

Thanks.

-- Markus

Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?

[Jerry]

On Nov 4, 5:07 am, d...@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Dirk Craeynest) wrote:
> Jerry  <lancebo...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >On Oct 30, 3:16 pm, Jerry <lancebo...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >> I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
> [...]
> >> Is there an official designation or
> >> are left to our own devices to call it what we want?
>
> >Thanks for your comments. On balance, things seem as confused as I had
> >feared.
>
> This issue is very clear, but some postings here seem to be confused.
>
> The internationally accepted recommendation to refer to the latest
> Ada language definition is to use the informal name "Ada 2005".
>
> See <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ada/msg/f1cf1036a71fca56>
>
> Dirk Craeynest, Dirk.Craeyn...@cs.kuleuven.be
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9, Head of Delegation, Belgium

Thanks, Dirk. 2005 it is.
Jerry