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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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 10.68.227.230 with SMTP id sd6mr2228345pbc.8.1335346366474;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 02:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni96357pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:31:44 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1xll47vz9nd7t.14ahwiifomrut.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <r9nolai9rkz8$.1j95yhyvqvm3o.dlg@40tude.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-25T11:31:44+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:36:41 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:47:06 -0700 (PDT), 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
> 
> Yep, proper procedural types to get rid of nasty access-to-procedure in 
> downward closures. No upward closures however.
> 
> Some set of operations to compose procedures, though the syntax for that is 
> unclear. I definitely do not want the mess typical for functional 
> languages.
> 
>> 2) parallel loops / functions
> 
> I don't think this is important.
> 
> But I do like to see some low-level primitives to support lock-free 
> concurrency, like atomic increment etc. The compiler would either use the 
> corresponding hardware operations or else generate a protected object if no 
> hardware support is there.
> 
>> 3) Multiple dispatch
> 
> Sure, but there is no working model of. The requirement is that dispatch 
> never fails at run-time (statically checked dispatching tables).
> 
> 4) Full multiple inheritance.
> 
> 5) Proper constructors and destructors (for all types), enforced, 
> exception-safe with roll-back.
> 
> 6) Delegation, this is related to the position 1.
> 
> 7) Classes for all types (including by-value types). Inheritance from all 
> types protected types and tasks included (one exception could be T'Class 
> another, maybe, the procedural types)
> 
> 8) Interface inheritance from concrete types while dropping the 
> implementation.
> 
> 9) "." (member), "in" (membership test), "'" (attribute), "(" (aggregate), 
> ":=" made primitive operations.
> 
> 10) Array index types to be a class. 1st class sets of indices (e.g. 
> ranges) and array subtypes (e.g. slices).
> 
> 11) Package interfaces, transitive "use." I.e. an ability to make things 
> visible in some package visible in another without repeating all its with 
> and use clauses. And, of course, "use" should imply "with" where 
> applicable.
> 
> 12) Renaming fixed. Renaming shall create no new objects. Renaming shall 
> respect array bounds. Renaming shall be available for types and subtypes. 
> Renamed entities shall never conflict with what they rename or themselves.

13) Forgot the most important thing: contracted exceptions

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de