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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,15267b2c375b45c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-22 10:09:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!attbi_s51.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F96B96E.3000707@comcast.net> 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: Ada Component Registry proposal References: <3F92BEAA.9030004@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.139.183 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s51 1066842558 24.34.139.183 (Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:09:18 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:09:18 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:09:18 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1442 Date: 2003-10-22T17:09:18+00:00 List-Id: 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