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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,799e6e37c90ca633 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@gnat.com Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions? Date: 1998/09/28 Message-ID: <6umk64$pt0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 395443908 References: <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x5.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.73.133.253 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 28 00:10:44 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I) Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, bpr5549@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In a fairly recent c.l.a. discussion it was mentioned that there is no > plan for an Ada 0X project comparable to the 9X project. What is the process > by which incremental changes will be made to the language, and how does one > go about participating? Has anything changed with the demise of the AJPO? > > -- Brian > > PS: In case anyone is wondering, my main peeve is the restriction on out mode > function parameters, which I just don't understand, even when I'm trying to > open minded. I have yet to hear a good defense of this restriction, so if > anyone has one, I'm all ears, errr, eyes. Brian, while I entirely share your view on this particular issue, you are quite wrong if you think there is any likelihood of this being changed. I was one of the authors of the requirements document, and we did not specifically recommend this change in the language, but we did use it as an example of an arbitrary restrction that should be reexamined. We got very few comments on the requirements document, *except* for a significant number of angry comments denouncing this horrible change :-) During the Ada 9X process, there was a continued effort, by me and others, but *particularly* by me, to get this addressed, and a last ditch effort to get it allowed at least for interfaced procedures. But it was quite clear that a significant and strong majority viewpoint is that this would be a mistake, since it would allow *at the specification level* the specification of functions that are clearly not functions in the mathematical sense. Yes, we all know that you can in Ada, still write non-mathematical functions, but the idea is that specifically allowing out parameters encourages and blesses this in a way that "illegitimate" use of side effects does not. Language design is a cooperative consensus process. I considered my job here to be to ensure that the majority exactly understood the issues in coming to their decision, and fully understood the (powerful) arguments in favor of dropping this distinction. I was convinced that both of these aims were achieved, and yet the vote was still to retain this restriction, and that's good enough for me. End of issue! So don't suppose that any Ada0X process would make a change that you would like here. It won't. No new arguments have been put forward, no new facts are known, and there is no reason for anyone to change their opinion on this, and having seen several separate communities come down in favor of retaining this restriction, I think it is clear that it is there to stay. And please don't start a thread discussing this without first doing extensive research into both Ada 9X design documents, and into comp.lang.ada archives, we have been there before :-) Meanwhile, if you are using GNAT, we copied DEC's (complete) solution to this in the form of the Import_Valued_Procedure pragma. If you are not using GNAT then encourage your vendor to implement this very useful feature! Robert Dewar Ada Core Tecnologies -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum