Re: Standard Library Interest?

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

Is that end-user extendable? I've never had a reason to try.

I'd agree that given the name "Interfaces" we'd be wise to include 
anything that smacked of a "binding" into that part. For example, you 
might have a Ada.OS or a Standard.OS that provided some Ada-flavored, 
portable (mostly) facilities for using common OS capabilities. 
(Directories, files, networks, etc.) Then under "Interfaces" you might 
have "Interfaces.Windows" that provided thin bindings to the Win32api. 
The Ada user has a choice: Build his app with the Ada-ish, portable 
features found in Standard.OS and suffer whatever limitations might have 
been sacrificed for the greater good of "portability" *OR* dip directly 
into the non-portable Win32api and get full access to anything the OS 
provides while suffering through the C-ish nature of the interface.

I still think that the question of how to organize the tree(s) is 
something that could be hammered out at a later point. If we got a 
charter from the vendors and ARG to do *something* a SIGAda team might 
be formed up to come up with the "how" issues and perhaps start 
establishing some guidelines. Get acceptance for the concept, then set 
someone up to be the Keeper Of The Eternal Flame and act as the 
editor/publisher. They'd come back to the principals and say "Here's our 
plan..." From there, it just starts to become a mere matter of technical 
details and probably funding.

If we wanted to, we could get all tangled up in details such as "What 
should we use for a configuration management system?" or "What document 
formats should we support?" Eventually, we'd have to answer those 
questions, but right now, we've got a bigger issue of gaining acceptance 
for the general concept. I'd think we want to worry about that first and 
let the rest fall out as "implementation details" once someone sets the 
direction and annoints an editor or team of editors to go worry about it.

MDC


Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> Similarly, I don't think Graphics and database bindings belong in Ada or 
> CAL.  I think they should go in Interfaces.
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
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
======================================================================