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: 103376,5894fe67040038b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-26 07:42:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version Date: 26 Nov 2001 07:42:33 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0111260742.2a0d9357@posting.google.com> References: <9s9iti$g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5ee5b646.0111081953.31e2633c@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0111121351.27897bc4@posting.google.com> <9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com> <9tsd63$4jjng$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1006789354 25418 127.0.0.1 (26 Nov 2001 15:42:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 2001 15:42:34 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16983 Date: 2001-11-26T15:42:34+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" wrote in message news:<9tsd63$4jjng$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>... > "Robert Dewar" wrote in message > news:5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com... > I know what the original idea was for the attributes. OK, one would not have guessed this from some earlier messages. Certainly others in this thread have been very confused (indeed the entire thread was started by such a confusion). > But just because they were originally intended for a > certain purpose, > doesn't mean they cannot be used for another purpose (in > addition), does it? It should if you are following good language design principles. There is no point in using the same attribute name for two different purposes. Also, extending the meaning of 'Version would be a language extension that would create a non-conforming variant of Ada. That means no one is going to do it without very general consensus, which you simply won't get going in this direction. If you choose a different attribute name, then you are no longer talking about a language extension, and it is much easier to get someone to implement it if they agree it has some merit. > Far be it from me to wish to perpetuate any confusion, > but often confusion is a problem cured by good > documentation, and doesn't necessarily require > new attributes. You can cure someones confusion with documentation if the confusion arises from misunderstanding. If the confusion stems from confused language design, such as in this case suggesting the use of 'Version to mean two rather unrelated things, then documentation won't be enough.