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,f297d5b850ee1e61 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-15 20:37:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!sccrnsc02.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3E74000C.2040209@attbi.com> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc. References: <87f5a614.0303011527.4cb09de2@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.164.137 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: sccrnsc02 1047789467 24.62.164.137 (Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:37:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:37:47 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:37:47 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35373 Date: 2003-03-16T04:37:47+00:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote: >As a external library. I don't see the need for it. I mean next will be >that we should have some sort of GUI standard in the Ada standard. Let me try to answer this from the ARG standpoint, plus some history. Way, way, back in the Mil-Std 1815 (Ada 80) days, I/O was an integral part of the language. By ANSI/Mil-Std 1815A (Ada 83) I/O required no special features within the language, and there was a set of standard packages, Direct_IO, Sequential_IO, Text_IO, and Low_Level_IO, that were required by the standard. In ANSI/ISO 8652 (Ada 95) these packages were moved into Annex A, predefined language environment, along with other old language features and a few new ones. In addition several specialized needs annexes were added for things that were only of interest to small segments of the Ada population. The idea was that compilers need not implement all of the specialized needs annexes. In practice, the major front ends, including GNAT have tended to implement all of the annexes, it really isn't all that hard. (All you need is someone who can read and understand each annex. ;-) But the annexes in my mind have been a success, because the design of the annexes forced us to really work hard on limiting any low-level extensions required to implement an annex. For example, the Information Systems Annex requires a lot of compiler independent software which need only be written once. (Ben Brosgal, Dave Emery, and I wrote a prototype of those operations under contract to the AJPO, and the source code was made public domain.) It also requires supporting a decimal type with at least eighteen decimal digits, and that's about it. Also the there are some dependencies between special needs annexes, but with a structure that makes sense. (For example, it makes no sense to implement the Real-Time Systems annex without the Systems Programming Annex. But when Ada 9X was in development we spent a lot of effort deciding what should and should not be added to the standard. The NRG had done a lot of work over a decade developing math packages. In 1982, the consensus was that adding a bad numerics library to the standard would be a mistake, and we couldn't delay the Ada standard until they were ready. By the early nineties they were ready, consistant with the IEEE work, and there was little argument that they should not be added. Similarly, for political reasons, support for other character sets was a requirement. But even though we put a significant amount of effort into developing an SQL interface, the consensus was that it wasn't something that belonged in the standard. (And in my opinion a good thing too. There were three proposals each with its strengths and weaknesses, and I have never really used any of them for more than a two or three page program. However there are now some very nice database bindings that don't require a blinding headache--and that were not available in time for Ada 95. If someone were to take the GNADE work: http://gnade.sourceforge.net/doc/gnade.html and propose all or part of it as part of the new standard, go ahead. Personally, I find the thin ODBC binding easy enough to use, but I think that a thinker binding would be more appropriate for adding to the standard. So what will be added to Ada 0Y? The only real consensus at this point is that there are some container libraries that should be considered. Check the Ada Issues database http://www.ada-auth.org/~acats/ais.html for details.