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: mfb@mbunix.mitre.org (Michael F Brenner)
Subject: Re: Future Ada language revisions?
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <6unmol$vm@top.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395555694
References: <6um7on$db5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998Sep27.181539.1@eisner>
 <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9809272141160.18704-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford Mass.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>> On a more pragmatic note, what do you feel has changed about the
>> world since 1995 to make people change their minds on this issue?

> ... in time perhaps
> the majority opinion will change. I'm one of those new Ada users, and as
> I've tried to "sell" Ada to colleagues I've been a bit embarassed at
> explaining this blemish.

>> There is no sense wasting resources to debate an issue when those
>> with a vote have chosen (twice) to let people use procedures rather
>> than functions to solve this need.

> However, rather than waste
> resources on a problem that everyone considers a done deal right now,
> maybe it would be best if I hadn't written that PS and just asked the
> question about the process of change for the language.
                
I agree with the problems noted by both posters: 
   (a) the process should be opened up to additional opinions
       (there should be at least inputs, even if there is no hope
       of a vote)
   (b) the process should be published so we know who to talk to 
       about change