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: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-11 17:51:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F88A577.5000803@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> <3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com> <3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com> <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> <3F846B5E.9080502@comcast.net> <3F855460.6020804@noplace.com> <3F86211B.103@comcast.net> <3F8640CA.6090306@noplace.com> <3F86FE09.3050302@comcast.net> <3F8816EB.1010009@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:51:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.25.238 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1065919866 209.165.25.238 (Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:51:06 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 20:51:06 EDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:688 Date: 2003-10-12T00:51:06+00:00 List-Id: A license is something to worry about down the road. That's something the vendors would have to say something about anyway. At this point I'm concerned about the idea expressed by Robert Eachus that a Conventional Ada Library be a branch (or several) under the standard library "Ada". That is, "Ada.Containers" and "Ada.Statistics" and so on. This would be a wonderful thing since it provides something really natural. Except that under "normal" rules you are not allowed to extend the package "Ada" and you may not have everything you need to do it if you could. That's why I'm objecting. Put it under a separate library or change the rules for the "Ada" tree so that this is possible to extend and required that you get source. At this point, I'm just stating a perceived requirement that is something near and dear to my heart - and possibly others: For a Conventional Ada Library, I want to get the source code and I want to be able to modify/extend it at will with no special limitations. (Much like any of the existing container libraries floating around out there.) If Robert Eachus or someone else who is smarter than me (And Robert really is *way* smarter than me! :-) can figure out some rule change for the package "Ada" that gets me this requirement, I'm happy as a pig in fewmets. :-) If that's not possible, then I think a Conventional Ada Library ought to exist under its own tree. I suppose that Robert's suggestion about renamings might be a good compromise. Make some "Official" root (Let's call it "CAL") and start adding branches (like "CAL.Containers" and "CAL.Statistics") They go through some editor/publisher to make sure they meet requirements and are released with everyone's compiler in full Ada source. If at a later date, the ARG decides that, e.g. CAL.Containers, ought to be part of the Ada standard, you just do a "renames" to Ada.Containers (keeping the original) and now it is a fully standard, entirely official part of Ada, complete with its own chapter in the ARM and a full validation suite. That seems like something that ought to work reasonably well. Do you think? (It might have problems if it still exists in CAL and the end-user can modify it. Leave that to the language lawyers to sort out. *That* problem is *waaaaaay* down the road. We can burn that bridge when we get to it.) MDC MDC Stephane Richard wrote: > > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend on > the licence? or would anything in there have the same licence? or an > OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available? -- ====================================================================== 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 ======================================================================