Ada95=>Ada0Y Process? [was: circular unit dependency]

["John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com>]

Jon S Anthony wrote:
> BTW, whatever happened to Tucker's plan for the fix for this?  The
> "with P.T" solution?  I thought that was going to be an ACE thing or
> some such, but haven't heard anything about it since.

I (John G. Volan) replied:
> 
> Yeah, whatever did happen to Tucker's "with type" proposal?  I remember
> he said this was something that really did need to be addressed "sooner
> rather than later" -- i.e., before AdaOY.

It has been a week and there has been utter silence on this. Tucker, are
you there?  I guess if there's no answer, then it must mean that
nobody's doing anything about this.

If I remember correctly, the last time this came up, Tucker said he was
experimenting with some kind of pragma trick, but it didn't really sound
as satisfying to me as his "with type" proposal.  Tucker, your proposal
was a bold stroke (especially your oblique suggestion that it be adopted
_before_ Ada0Y), but now it seems like you've backed off on it. What
gives?

My question for comp.lang.ada as a whole is this:  What mechanism, if
any, is currently established for evolving the Ada language standard? 
Since I haven't heard the trumpet fanfare yet, obviously the Ada0Y
process has not yet begun (and is not due to begin for a few years yet).
However, is there an interim Rapporteur Group or something that is
administering Ada95 Interpretations and/or extension requests and
what-not?  Maybe they'd like to have a look at the hypothetical language
rules for with-type clauses described in
http://bluemarble.net/~jvolan/WithingProblem/FAQ.html#forward_incompletes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name       => "John G. Volan",
   Employer   => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA",
   Work_Email => "johnv@ti.com",
   Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan     => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using " & 
                 "them would be totally erroneous...or is that just "  &
                 "nondeterministic behavior now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------