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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fca456da8e6ec463
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-19 11:35:22 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!grolier!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!mendelevium.btinternet.com!not-for-mail
From: Nick Williams <nickw@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:34:08 +0000
Organization: BT Internet
Message-ID: <3A6896B0.20206@acm.org>
References: <979792273.15897.0.nnrp-10.9e98cc46@news.demon.co.uk>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101181532200.20624-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host213-1-197-158.btinternet.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.2.17-21mdk i686; en-US;
 0.6) Gecko/20001205
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4220
Date: 2001-01-19T19:34:08+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Brian Rogoff wrote


> Check out the discussion here over the last few weeks. As long as you're
> wishing, how about merging OO features and protected types, removing the 
> restriction on protected types calling blocking operations, etc...?

With regard to the former; did you by any chance read the article on 
that precise subject in the current issue of the ACM's Transactions on 
Programming Languages and Systems (May 2000)?

If so, what do you think of the authors' approach? If not, I hope the 
reference will be of some interest...

Cheers,

Nick Williams.