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,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java) Date: 1999/02/05 Message-ID: <36bb4819.5482558@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441103416 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: assen.demon.co.uk:158.152.218.101 References: <78kk11$qmd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <78ks1t$253$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36affcb4.14065782@news.geccs.gecm.com> <36B1F27A.6762@gecm.com> <78tm5g$kb1$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36b7695a.2630918@news.geccs.gecm.com> <873e4oqtz1.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com> <36b89f98.2045516@news.demon.co.uk> <874sp34287.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com> <36B9DA0A.40D0@gecm.com> <87yame2cb0.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com> X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 918244602 nnrp-12:13685 NO-IDENT assen.demon.co.uk:158.152.218.101 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net Date: 1999-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Chris Morgan wrote: >This point is moot now (see Prof. Dewar's announcement) but I thought >I'd respond anyway. I'm glad you did. >John McCabe writes: >> You may notice that all the parts of your message I have left in here >> have referred to alternative version brached from the original e.g.: >> >> EGCS - Not GCC <..snip..> >By this reasoning if the file was called ACT-ada-mode-for-gnat.tar.gz >but became ada-mode.el it wouldn't be that different from the above but >you might be happier. Not really. Se my point below*. >Still, if we're only talking about names it's not so important. What I >didn't like was the implication of wrongdoing or misrepresentation. See my point below*. >> ACT's ada-mode, for GNAT users *may* be the best thing since sliced >> bread, but it's still called ada-mode, not gnat-mode. I (and Brian) >> obviously are really just suggesting that ada-mode should simply have >> had the gnat-specific enhancements added asa a separate package >> (gnat-mode) that required ada-mode. This is not a difficult thing to do, >> and now we've started to discuss things, it seems that we may all get >> what we want to some extent. >It looks like the Emacs+proprietary Ada compiler users may have to >pull in their horns here, see the announcement, but of course you can >get together and and make an Ada-Mode for ProprietaryAda team if you >want. I have never tried to suggest that effort be expended by ACT to actively support proprietary compilers (if it has sounded that way then I apologise - it wasn't meant to), simply that extensions to ada-mode.el itself be done in such a way that users of proprietary compilers are not inconvenienced. I believe that the changes put out as ada-mode 3.1 by ACT did inconvenience proprietary compiler users, not necessarily by making it impossible to be used with other compilers, but by creating a need for significant effort to be put in by those users to make this happen. *I have heard a few negative comments regarding that version of ada-mode from people who have been using ada-mode for years. It sounds like a number of people have taken 3.1 and tried to use it with non-GNAT compilers only to find that some of the functionality they had from ada-mode V2.27 (or 2.28) is no longer available because they don't have GNAT (or gnatstub in the case of ada-make-body). Now if ACT had produced GNAT-mode, not ada-mode, or had used some other version numbering scheme that didn't follow on from previous version of ada-mode, then I am sure that confusion would not have arisen. My main aim all along in discussing this has been to make ada-mode non-proprietary, *including* GNAT. >If you do and if there is good work done I'm sure Emmanuel Briot >will be happy to collaborate with you. Having had numerous correspondence with Emmanuel over the last couple of weeks, I have confidence that the results of his labour will be of benefit to the Ada community at large, and he has my support. >An interesting discussion here anyway, I hadn't thought about all >these splits in this light before. I'm glad we have caught your interest :-) Best Regards John McCabe