Re: Software Engineering News Brief

[kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <01bbd490$356f8220$686700cf@ljelmore.montana>, "Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:

> I agree that it's unnecessary for Ada to directly support dates rtanging
> over thousands of years, but IMHO the 1900-2099 A.D. limit is just too
> small. For example, any program dealing with birthdates of people (and I'm
> thinking mainly in the health care field right now where many patients are
> elderly), many people alive today were born before 1900.

And genealogists might want support a few centuries back, or a few
more centuries depending on how successful they have been in their
work.  As one goes further back, human assumptions about rule sets
diverge.

> elderly), many people alive today were born before 1900. Ada *should*
> directly support dates widely used in many programs today.

I would think a health-care date package, and a genealogical date
package would be a better approach.  The former might merely extend
the years, while the latter would handle localization issues. Look
at the more complete family of Machintosh toolbox date calls for
a set of capabilities way beyond what the average programmer should
be forced to face.  The Ada standard date package should provide for
those whose needs are _not_ specialized arould date issues.  The
same should be true in other areas.

Larry Kilgallen