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: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-10 05:03:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3FAF8C99.5040201@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: Clause "with and use" References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil> <1067951806.729117@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1068123815.335508@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3FAAB12E.C7593B45@fakeaddress.nil> <3FACCBFB.9D288CF2@fakeaddress.nil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:03:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.2.144 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1068469405 209.165.2.144 (Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:03:25 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:03:25 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2293 Date: 2003-11-10T13:03:25+00:00 List-Id: Obviously, there are limited resources for modifying Ada compilers. Obviously, there is a large corpus of existing Ada code that must not be broken by language-rule changes. Just as obviously, there are implications that are not intuitively obvious to the casual observer when adding something like the infamous "+=" or now the "with and use". Hence, it ought to be obvious that any proposed language change had better have some significant food-value associated with it to make it worth the research time into implications, the compiler changes necessary and the possible risk to breaking any existing code. I don't see any big advantages in what has been proposed here - not enough to make it worth the effort. It would be more productive to figure out if there is some major shortcoming in Ada or some major capabilities that Ada could use rather than worry about relatively trivial syntax changes that don't address some gaping hole in Ada's capabilities. MDC Preben Randhol wrote: > > And you are reflexively promoting any new change no matter what the > change is. Sure I don't want to have a lot of trivial non-important > changes to the language. Why? Because I want changes that really do > matter and which will make the language richer. > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Trying is the first step towards failure." -- Homer Simpson ======================================================================