Re: Ada95 Should be a Multivolume ISO Standard

[ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)]

I simply note that POSIX.5 was not developed as an amendment
to the Ada standard and didn't need to be.  (If POSIX.5 is the
Fortran binding and not the Ada one, please correct me.  I don't
have either yet.)

There is already a ton of good stuff in Ada.
If we want standard interfaces to other things, they can be separate
standards, just as POSIX.1 is not in the C standard, but is a separate
standard.  CORBA is not in the C standard.  X11 is not in the C standard.
PHiGS is not in the C standard.  &c.

>L. However, I wish to very strongly emphasize that I am not asking for major
>changes that are strongly coupled to the rest of the language; but only,
>reasonable additions and minor fixes.

There is already a mechanism in place for minor fixes.
I note that the C standard follows the same model:  one submits
Defect Reports and binding Interpretations are issued.

Additions can be separate standards that provide _interfaces_ that are
compatible with Ada.

-- 
Australian citizen since 14 August 1996.  *Now* I can vote the xxxs out!
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.