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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.236.170 with SMTP id uv10mr15281829pbc.4.1335768001539;
        Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni114825pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Michael Rohan <michael@zanyblue.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 23:40:00 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <16855187.895.1335768000438.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbctt8>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 108.68.98.119
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335768001 6183 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2012 06:40:01
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:40:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=108.68.98.119;
 posting-account=1YPeQwoAAACAk-xhKPD32B0GIDdsFFtk
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-04-29T23:40:00-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 12:47:06 AM UTC-7, Martin wrote:
> Ok, we don't officially have Ada2012 yet but as no new features are going to be added to it, now seems like a good time to start thinking about the next revision.
> 
> My starters for 10 are:
> 
> 1) 1st class functions / lambdas
> 2) parallel loops / functions
> 3) Multiple dispatch
> > -- Martin

Hi Folks,

Here's another suggestion that will probably upset some people but it's
something I've run into with generated code: it would be nice to have a
more general "separate" (I seem to remember a posting on this thread about
how "separate" was bad!).  What I think would be somewhat useful would be
to allow separate definitions of initializations, e.g.,

    type Integer_List is array (Positive range <>) of Integer;
    My_Data : constant Integer_List := (1, 2, 3, 4);

If the data used to do the initialization is OS dependent, or otherwise
generated, it might be nice to do

    My_Data : constant Integer_List separate;

The separate source could then contain just the generated/OS dependent
data.

This particular syntax for the use of the "separate" keyword feels a
little ugly to me, but the underlying functionality is, I believe, valid.

Take care,
Michael.