Re: Standard Library Interest?

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

I understand and anticipated that there would be a valid reason for not 
allowing extensions to Ada. That's why I raised the issue and was 
looking for something that would get around that.

Note that the ARM doesn't appear to say "Thou shalt provide a mode under 
which a common, ordinary, garden-variety user can extend and modify 
packages under Ada...". Hence there may not be. There may be no source 
delivered for things under Ada. There may be no method provided to 
recompile the source even if it is provided. The source may not even be 
in Ada - it could be in C or assembler or in Jovial for all that the 
standard has to say about it.

I think its essential that the end user have the library in source code 
and be allowed to play with it. If you figure out a way that this can be 
done, I'll accept that. I just want a guarantee that whatever tree it 
gets built under, I get the whole source for the tree and can modify or 
extend anything in that tree. Is that a reasonable requirement for a 
library?

MDC


Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> That is why I mentioned renaming.  But if there is an Ada.Containers, 
> then I think it should be used in preference to CAL.Containers.
> 
> By the way, the ARM A.2(4) says that: "In the standard mode, it is 
> illegal to compile a child of package Ada."
> 
> But don't take that to mean what it doesn't say.  The AARM adds a 
> reason, a ramification, and an Implementation Note:
> 
> Reason: The intention is that mentioning, say, Ada.Text_IO in a 
> with_clause is guaranteed (at least in the standard mode) to refer to 
> the standard version of Ada.Text_IO. The user can compile a root library 
> unit Text_IO that has no relation to the standard version of Text_IO.
> 
> Ramification: Note that Ada can have non-language-defined grandchildren, 
> assuming the implementation allows it. Also, packages System and 
> Interfaces can have children, assuming the implementation allows it.
> 
> Implementation Note: An implementation will typically support a 
> nonstandard mode in which compiling the language defined library units 
> is allowed. Whether or not this mode is made available to users is up to 
> the implementer.
> 
> The reason and the ramification are very important here.  In standard 
> mode, you are guaranteed that Ada.Text_IO is the standard Ada.Text_IO. 
> But if there is a container library in Ada, adding children, especially 
> children that extend the original package is allowed.  (Incidently, the 
> real, intended, rule is that vendors should have a special mode for 
> recompiling the standard libraries, and replacing library units and 
> their children defined in the RM should not otherwise be possible.)


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================