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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!inmet!ishmael!inmet!stt From: stt@inmet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada language revision Message-ID: <124000020@inmet> Date: 21 Nov 88 15:40:00 GMT References: <44449@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> Nf-ID: #R:beno.seismo.CSS.GOV:-4444900:inmet:124000020:000:2218 Nf-From: inmet!stt Nov 21 10:40:00 1988 List-Id: "Official" revision requests for Ada will ultimately have to be sent to "ada9x@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu" following a detailed format similar to language comments as specified in the back of the Ada LRM, but with many more standard paragraphs, including "!keywords", "!summary", "!specific requirement/solution criteria", etc. The primary emphasis is to state *requirements* which are currently felt to be unanswered by Ada, rather than specific solutions. The official revision request format will probably be announced soon. It's pretty easy to indulge in Ada bashing, or Fortran bashing, or Pascal bashing, etc. However, the ada9x effort will probably be most responsive to carefully argued points. The following 2 points by would be easier to understand if they identified the LRM paragraph of the mentioned "rule". As far as I know, no such rules exist. >> 3) The rule that a limited private type cannot be a direct component of >> another limited private type should be repealed. Perhaps the issue is that non-limited types may not have components of limited types? (I agree this is annoying, though defensible.) >> 7) Arrays should be initializable via named association. It is very >> tedious to write out 37 Falses simply in order to initialize the >> 38th element of a Boolean array to True before I can finally specify >> that all other elements of the array are False. Named aggregates are legal to initialize arrays. Perhaps the issue is the use of "named" notation in conjunction with "others =>". This is never permitted in places where implicit array subtype conversion (aka "sliding") is legal because there is no way of knowing what is the first element of the aggregate (it may be one of the named elements, or it may be one of the "others"). To avoid this problem, a qualified expression may be used, specifying the subtype of the array aggregate explicitly, which implies the low and high bounds. Generally I agree with the spirit, if not the details, of these requests. But to be effective, they must be as formally and carefully stated as possible. Tucker Taft stt@inmet.inmet.com; ...!uunet!inmet!stt Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02138