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,ebbca47c76670bb2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-01 05:06:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reemergence of predefined equality operator... Date: 1 Aug 2002 05:06:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0208010406.6d9ae2e3@posting.google.com> References: <3D488F3D.6186@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1028203614 2216 127.0.0.1 (1 Aug 2002 12:06:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Aug 2002 12:06:54 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27563 Date: 2002-08-01T12:06:54+00:00 List-Id: Vincent Marciante wrote in message news:<3D488F3D.6186@earthlink.net>... > If overriding of predefined "=" was disallowed in the > future (not practical?) wouldn't that solve the problem > well? Is that really really not practical? Of course that's not practical. Do you really think vendors would pay any attention if the Ada design went berserk and started adding gratuitous non-upward compatible changes? Remember that it is possible to redefine "=" in Ada 83 as well. A criterion for Ada 95 was no non-upwards compatible changes (unless a VERY good argument could be given, e.g. optional package bodies and the (<>) generic stuff, where Ada 83 was clearly broken). That criterion has to be applied even more strongly for any future revisions to Ada. One thing to be careful of is that current proposals for revisions to Ada are coming mostly from hobbyists and language designers, not from actual users writing large application programs. That means one needs to be even more cautious in countenancing changes. Actually in practice, I think any new "Ada0X" will be no more than a list of suggestions for enhancements and new ideas. I think there will be almost no commercial pressure to implement such a new standard in some validated form for the forseeable future (after all, look how long it took for the C standard to take hold).