Re: Ada Component Registry proposal

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

sk wrote:

> The naming scheme would give an immediate signal that there are
> potentially very dangerous 'Address clauses and UC's going on in
> the body which are totally uneccessary with Ada95.

Right now the XML grammer has a requires clause that can specify 
libraries, hardware, operating systems, and compilers.  Adding a 
language version requirement as such is trivial.

But again, and this is why I am still at the thinking stage, right now 
if you "require" two different hardware platforms or operating systems, 
there is an implicit "or", while two software libraries have an implicit 
"and".  It may be worth making those explicit, or it might be better to 
have a supports clause.  That way supports Ada 95 and Ada 83 implies it 
has been tested on both, while requires Ada 95 implies it doesn't work 
under Ada 83.  And of course, requires for a particular compiler would 
be much more restrictive in meaning that supports that compiler.  What 
do you think?

-- 
                                                     Robert I. Eachus

"Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the 
goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, 
down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or 
down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair 
of an old motorcycle."  -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance by Robert Pirsig