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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5997b4b7b514f689
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length
Date: 1997/03/05
Message-ID: <1997Mar5.102140.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 223280719
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com>
 <JSA.97Mar4154951@alexandria>
X-Nntp-Posting-User: KILGALLEN
X-Trace: 857575310/19959
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <JSA.97Mar4154951@alexandria>, jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes:
> In article <dewar.857447653@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
>> Jon said
>> 
>> <<Because there are areas and cases where the GC should not be simply
>> "transparent".  That it should have some explicit programmer control
>> available.>>
>> 
>> Well there is a contentions statement. I strongly disagree that GC
>> should not be simply transparent, and I do not like the idea of
>> standardizing explicit programmer control, whatever that might be.
> 
> Yes, it is.  These are merely points that have been made in GC
> circles.  I'm not _advocating_ them, just trying to point out various
> reason why a "defined standard minimal interface" may be needed.

It seems to me that by omission the Ada 95 (or 83, for that matter)
reference manual establishes that the "defined standard minimal interface"
is one without programmer control or API.  Anything on top of that is
implementation-specific.

To specify anything further with no confirmed sightings of potential
implementors would give the impression that standards committees are
paid by the word.

Larry Kilgallen