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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,18f6de557e6897b2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "John G. Volan" Subject: Re: Ada95=>Ada0Y Process? [was: circular unit dependency] Date: 1997/06/07 Message-ID: <339A02D1.25D3@sprintmail.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 246916360 References: <3386d96f.171920@noticias.ibernet.es> <33898C78.27D3@sprintmail.com> <33937420.4458@sprintmail.com> Organization: Sprint Internet Passport Reply-To: johnvolan@sprintmail.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert, according to the SIGAda website (http://info.acm.org/sigada/), you're listed as the contact for (and I'm guessing the chairman of) the Standards Working Group ("SIGAda's liaison to Ada language maintenance activities"). Can you answer my original question? I wrote: > 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? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------