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,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-28 07:15:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!unlisys!news.snafu.de!news.eusc.inter.net!boavista!nobody From: Michael Erdmann Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Development process in the Ada community Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:18:20 +0200 Organization: [Posted via] Inter.net Germany GmbH Message-ID: <3CCC04AC.3020602@snafu.de> References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CCA609F.9030503@snafu.de> <5ee5b646.0204271554.5b6e07ed@posting.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.eusc.inter.net 1020003299 13976 213.73.66.225 (28 Apr 2002 14:14:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@eusc.inter.net To: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23195 Date: 2002-04-28T16:18:20+02:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > Michael Erdmann wrote in message news:<3CCA609F.9030503@snafu.de>... > > >>* In long terms the library should become a defacto >> standard for the Ada community and should be >> boundeld with Ada compilers. >> > > Don't count on this kind of bundling. Speaking for ACT, we > would only bundle a library if: > > a) our customers actively needed a supported version > b) we had the resources to provide full support > > I think it's still a success to generate some useful packages > even if they don't get bundled by vendors. I dont count on it, this is just an statement of intention! >>* Please no extensive style discussions, a common style >> will evolve during the first iterations of the >> project. >> > > That seems a mistake to me, it is very difficult to impose a common > standard later on. Why not at least adopt -gnaty as a starting point > together with the general guidelines in AQ&S. I don't think -gnaty > is someone better than some other possible standard, but consistency > is important, and it is important to agree on something. But i won't reject a package for style reasons, if it does what it is expected to do. I like to avoid discussions about the form of identifiers, e.g. Container_Type or simply Container. Sure complete anarchy has to be avoided, but i like to discuss this issue on a case to case basis not in general > >>Any how i like to invite every body in the community >>to spend some time in checking there repositories >>for usefull components. If you find something >>usefull (which means you already used it your self) >>or if you are willing to be the champion of a domain >>simply send me a mail, that we get organized! >> > > A reasonable invitation! Most certainly ACT spends quite > a bit of time generating such components, and they get > put in our GNAT library, which is available for anyone > to look at and either use, or derive inspirations from :-) I hope it works out! M.Erdmann