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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,775f2cb8854e78a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-27 12:36:45 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: amado.alves@netcabo.pt (M?rio Amado Alves)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada_Arrays Project
Date: 27 Nov 2003 12:36:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <17eddf9f.0311271236.2a1ded9f@posting.google.com>
References: <17eddf9f.0311270408.53a25eb1@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbsbt29.a4a.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-082243.nt.ntnu.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.113.164.100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1069965405 13932 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2003 20:36:45
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 20:36:45 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3002
Date: 2003-11-27T12:36:45-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> > Anybody besides me foresees the great usefulness of Ada_Arrays?
> No, but please explain why you find it useful :-)

Standard fixed, bounded and unbounded arrays of *any* element type
sounds yummy to me. I know there are some libraries out there that
provide things like this. Advantages of generating it from Ada.Strings
would include:
- interface and semantics already very well known by users
- validation carried over from Ada.Strings
- added facilities e.g. Find_Token
- fun ASIS project

But if "no"--*nobody* foresees the usefulness--then I'll accept I'm
not seeing right and I'll drop the project on the spot and say thanks
for the eye operation and I'm sorry for the all the fuss.

> > (I'm also interested in this project as a test case for open source
> > software licensing. I'd like to release it under a "commercial open
> > source" license...
> Why? What is wrong with GMGPL?

Nothing "wrong", it just isn't commercial. If you don't want to make
money then GMGPL is fine. The basic idea of commercial open source is
that if an (open source) component ends up being part of a lucrative
setup then the authors of the component receive a fair reward. Before
objecting please review the material indexed on the SDC site, for
example my essay Open Source Business Found Parasitic, Bob Leif's Ada
Developers Cooperative License, and the Commented Conditions of Use of
SDC Artifacts. And I suggest we don't discuss the general issue here
(it's OT). You're very welcome to do it on the SDC forum of course
(www.softdevelcoop.org).