Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[bourguet]

John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> wrote:

>>Brian Orpin wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:44:25 GMT, john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John
>> McCabe) wrote:
>> >What on earth is ada-mode 3.0? First I've heard of it. Where can I get
>>
>> It is on the cs.nyu archive (as is 11p) as 3.1
>
>Can you give me an exact URL? I had a look round last night and couldn't
>find anything that seemed right. Is it part of a gzipped file or
>something.

ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat/adamode_3.1.tar.gz

>> It does of course seem to assume that the only Ada compiler in the world
>> is Gnat which is a real pity.

>That's not surprising. I've heard something about ACT getting involved
>with ada-mode from the emacs ada mode mailing list, but I had hoped they
>would separate anything they did from the main code to allow other
>compilers to be used with it.

I do not see what prevent the use of this mode to edit ada code for other
compilers. As far as I known, the only thing which was not dependant on
gnat which will now be unavailable to others people is the stub generation
(perhaps a request to re-insert the old code could be sent to ACT?). By the
way every other time the result of the old code was just to copy the spec in
the body and add " body " after package.

I've more to complain (I've send a report) to the definition of key
sequences which should be reserved to users.

>> The texi file will not convert to info nor will it convert to html (as
>> the html file in the distribution shows).
>
>Tremendous ! (*NOT*)

I had no problem to generate an info file (it was named ada-mode).

-- Jean-Marc

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[dewar]

In article <78kk11$qmd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  bourguet@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> >> It does of course seem to assume that the only Ada
> >> compiler in the world
> >> is Gnat which is a real pity.

The new Ada mode certainly does rely on GNAT to provide
information that only a compiler can provide.

> >That's not surprising. I've heard something about ACT
> >getting involved
> >with ada-mode from the emacs ada mode mailing list, but
> >I had hoped they
> >would separate anything they did from the main code to
> >allow other
> >compilers to be used with it.
>
> I do not see what prevent the use of this mode to edit
> ada code for other
> compilers. As far as I known, the only thing which was
> not dependant on
> gnat which will now be unavailable to others people is
> the stub generation

No, that's wrong, the really important feature is the
cross-referencing features which are driven by ali files,
and there is no way of duplicating this kind of Ada
compiler smart knowledge without an Ada compiler.

However, the intention is certainly that other features of
Ada mode can be used without problems.

> (perhaps a request to re-insert the old code could be
> sent to ACT?). By the
> way every other time the result of the old code was just
> to copy the spec in
> the body and add " body " after package.

That's a reasonable request. Note however, that there is
nothing to stop you using the gnatstub tool with other
compilers!

> I've more to complain (I've send a report) to the
> definition of key
> sequences which should be reserved to users.

Unfortunately, it is definitely too late to change key
sequences at this point, as there is a pretty large user
base.

Suggestions for Ada mode (or for any other feature relating
to GNAT) can certainly be discussed here, if they are
general Ada related things, or on chat@gnat.com if they
are very specific to GNAT (there are *many* knowledgable
GNAT users on chat who cannot find the time or energy to
read CLA these days :-)

But for actual suggestions to be registered by ACT, send
them to report@gnat.com, thanks.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

P.S. One possibility for key sequences is to provide an
alternative set of definitions. of course it is relatively
trivial to modify key sequences!

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[Simon Wright]

abuse@borpin.demon.co.uk (Brian Orpin) writes:

(replying to Robert Dewar, I think)

> But you shouldn't have to!  The whole point is to use common key
> sequences as much as possible.  Why change it?  It just perpetuates
> the feeling that Ada is a law unto itself so people steer away from
> it.  Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

I don't know which is odd-man-out, but it is a royal pain that in Ada
mode C-c C-c means 'compile' (in some way or other), while in C or C++
mode it means 'comment out the region'.

Personally I don't mind who becomes the main ada-mode maintainer, but
with my unsupported hat on I wouldn't like to wait another 12 months
or more for ACT's 3.2 ..

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[bourguet]

In article <78ks1t$253$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> In article <78kk11$qmd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>   bourguet@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> > >That's not surprising. I've heard something about ACT
> > >getting involved
> > >with ada-mode from the emacs ada mode mailing list, but
> > >I had hoped they
> > >would separate anything they did from the main code to
> > >allow other
> > >compilers to be used with it.
> >
> > I do not see what prevent the use of this mode to edit
> > ada code for other
> > compilers. As far as I known, the only thing which was
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^
> > not dependant on
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > gnat which will now be unavailable to others people is
> > the stub generation
>
> No, that's wrong, the really important feature is the
> cross-referencing features which are driven by ali files,
> and there is no way of duplicating this kind of Ada
> compiler smart knowledge without an Ada compiler.

I think that the cross reference feature of ada-mode did
already depend on gnat.

> However, the intention is certainly that other features of
> Ada mode can be used without problems.

-- Jean-Marc

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[John McCabe]

bourguet@my-dejanews.com wrote:

<..snip..>

>I think that the cross reference feature of ada-mode did
>already depend on gnat.

Which is why it was removed (into ada-xref.el) from the main ada-mode
lisp file I believe.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[John McCabe]

Simon Wright wrote:

> Personally I don't mind who becomes the main ada-mode maintainer, but
> with my unsupported hat on I wouldn't like to wait another 12 months
> or more for ACT's 3.2 ..

Me either. I would like to see the mailing list become more active. It
was for a while then it completely died. Even using the commands in the
original response I received from the list server when I joined don't
work. Except for sending mesages to the list, the list server seems to
be under the impression it's not handling that list any more.

I would prefer to see independant development of ada-mode. I don't like
the way that ACT have taken the menu out of the main ada-mode.el file
and included all the sub-menus as part of their 'enhancements'. It ties
it even more to GNAT which I believe is a bad thing.

John

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[dewar]

In article <36B1F27A.6762@gecm.com>,
  John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> wrote:
> Simon Wright wrote:
>
> > Personally I don't mind who becomes the main ada-mode
> > maintainer, but
> > with my unsupported hat on I wouldn't like to wait
> > another 12 months or more for ACT's 3.2 ..

As I said earlier, it is most definitely the case that ACT
would want to see continued development by the community
here.

> I would prefer to see independant development of
> ada-mode. I don't like the way that ACT have taken the
> menu out of the main ada-mode.el file and included all
> the sub-menus as part of their 'enhancements'. It ties
> it even more to GNAT which I believe is a bad thing.

I am sure this is an area where there will be lots of
disagreements as to which is the best thing to do. Our
development is based on the needs of our customers and
our own development team, and we have our own opinions
about how things should be done. Tight integration of
GNAT related features is indeed one of the goals we have.

We are simply sharing what we do here, no one is forced
to take it if they don't want to! We will most certainly
be continuing to develop Ada mode, but independent
development is certainly welcome, and we will feel free
to borrow any good ideas out there, and people should feel
free to borrow any of our ideas that they care to!

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[Chris Morgan]

abuse@borpin.demon.co.uk (Brian Orpin) writes:

> What you have is not a general ada-mode for Emacs but a specific
> gnat-mode.  That is a very poor implementation of the spirit of Emacs.
> You have basically hijacked the mode for your own ends and then forced it
> on the unsuspecting emacs Ada community by calling it ada-mode.

Nonsense. The name is irrelevant and I hardly think they have forced
anything on anyone. A free Ada compiler offers an Ada mode for a free
editor package. The distribitors call it ada-mode. You can take their
code and do what you like to it, rename any function, stick it on your
web server in a "corrected" form and so on.

I think you will find that Richard Stallman would be quite unconcerned
that Emacs Ada mode works best with GNU Ada. After all he only
recently suggested switching GNU libraries to GPL rather than LGPL
leaving commercial software out in the cold. Of course in this case I
doubt ACT will agree with him having demonstrated concern for the
wider Ada community more adequately at this stage.

> Fine but don't distribute it as ada-mode but as gnat-mode.  A better
> solution would be to include all Ada general stuff in an ada-mode and
> have a separate gnat-mode that required the ada-mode.  That would then
> enhance the abilities of Emacs for use with _all_ Ada compilers and not
> just gnat.

This is a perfectly fair suggestion and shows that you realise they
have done some work that helps users of other Ada compiler and some
that doesn't. I still don't see that as anything like forcing or
hijacking. It seems really petulant to complain that they wont split
up the version they offer to make this split easier for their
competition to take advantage of.

Chris

-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[John McCabe]

Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>abuse@borpin.demon.co.uk (Brian Orpin) writes:
>
>> What you have is not a general ada-mode for Emacs but a specific
>> gnat-mode.  That is a very poor implementation of the spirit of Emacs.
>> You have basically hijacked the mode for your own ends and then forced it
>> on the unsuspecting emacs Ada community by calling it ada-mode.

>Nonsense. The name is irrelevant and I hardly think they have forced
>anything on anyone. A free Ada compiler offers an Ada mode for a free
>editor package. The distribitors call it ada-mode. You can take their
>code and do what you like to it, rename any function, stick it on your
>web server in a "corrected" form and so on.

The point is that there is an *official* ada-mode that is bundled with
GNU Emacs and is maintained by an *official* maintainer. By making
significant changes that affect the generality of the package without
renaming it has confused the issue.

>I think you will find that Richard Stallman would be quite unconcerned
>that Emacs Ada mode works best with GNU Ada. After all he only
>recently suggested switching GNU libraries to GPL rather than LGPL
>leaving commercial software out in the cold. Of course in this case I
>doubt ACT will agree with him having demonstrated concern for the
>wider Ada community more adequately at this stage.

I would think that he may be concerned that someone other than the
official maintainer of ada-mode for Emacs is passing off their version
as Emacs' ada-mode.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[Chris Morgan]

john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe) writes:

> The point is that there is an *official* ada-mode that is bundled with
> GNU Emacs and is maintained by an *official* maintainer. By making
> significant changes that affect the generality of the package without
> renaming it has confused the issue.

Perhaps, and then only if you go their website or a mirror, take their
altered version, install it on your computer yourself, and then try to
use a different compiler from the one they provide. If you're a GNAT
user however, the "ACT Ada mode" for GNU Emacs is the best thing since
sliced bread.

I'm fairly certain RISCAda from Alsys came with an Ada-mode for emacs
too but it was also not the "one true Ada-mode" as it worked with
their other GUI tools.

> 
> >I think you will find that Richard Stallman would be quite unconcerned
> >that Emacs Ada mode works best with GNU Ada. After all he only
> >recently suggested switching GNU libraries to GPL rather than LGPL
> >leaving commercial software out in the cold. Of course in this case I
> >doubt ACT will agree with him having demonstrated concern for the
> >wider Ada community more adequately at this stage.
> 
> I would think that he may be concerned that someone other than the
> official maintainer of ada-mode for Emacs is passing off their version
> as Emacs' ada-mode.

Look, this is free software. There's not really much weight to being
an official anything to do with free software. Richard Kenner is the
official maintainer of GCC. That doesn't mean the egcs team did
anything bad by branching the source code. ACT is the official
maintainer of GNAT, but Markus and his merry band of "GNAT for Linux"
hackers will probably be distributing patched up versions of the
public GNAT releases in the not too distant future. Branching and
merging is the way of life for these projects.

If the official maintainer of "the one true Ada-mode" likes what ACT
has done, he can simply take it, break it into specialised and general
purpose pieces, rename the former with GNAT_ and then incorporate
those pieces into the distribution. At that point ACT may well switch
their work to his latest version or continue on with their own
branched version. If you don't like it, DON'T USE IT! DEMAND A
REFUND!!

This kind of process has given us Gnus, XEmacs and XFree86. In each
case some people have said "oh please don't confuse the issue" but
something good has come of it (ok, I'm not sure if anyone complained
about Gnus, but the official maintainer of GNUS was probably not about
to do the work that Lars Magne Ingewhatsit has done). It's a form of
healthy evolutionary biodiversity. It's why X/Open is not able to
screw over Linux users for X/Xt royalties as the XFree team got in
there just in time and branched off a version before the fees were
instituted. 

As to your use of the term "passing off" I think this is
unjustified. If you don't go to an ftp directory full of stuff from
ACT and grab the Ada-mode from there how does one get "misled" this
way?  If you do, surely it's up to you?

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[dennison]

In article <79c9b2$h3j$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> This is to announce that Richard Stallman has formally
> designated Emmanuel Briot as the official maintainer
> of Ada mode for EMACS. Emmanuel Briot is an employee of
> Ada Core Technologies, but will be doing this work with

So much for all those arguments about ACT's Ada mode differing from that of
the "true owners" :-)

> a GNU hat on, and of course all work will be assigned to
> the Free Software Foundation. Ada Core Technologies is

As someone who is currently getting ready to release some OpenSource s/w, I'm
curious about this. How exactly does one "assign" one's work to the FSF? Is
it as simple as putting the copyright notice in their name? Does the FSF have
to be notified somehow?

T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[John McCabe]

Chris Morgan wrote:
 
> john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe) writes:
 
> > The point is that there is an *official* ada-mode that is bundled
> > with GNU Emacs and is maintained by an *official* maintainer. By
> > making significant changes that affect the generality of the package
> > without renaming it has confused the issue.

<..snip..>

> official maintainer of GCC. That doesn't mean the egcs team did
> anything bad by branching the source code. ACT is the official
> maintainer of GNAT, but Markus and his merry band of "GNAT for Linux"
> hackers will probably be distributing patched up versions of the
> public GNAT releases in the not too distant future. Branching and
> merging is the way of life for these projects.
 
<..snip..>

> This kind of process has given us Gnus, XEmacs and XFree86. In each
> case some people have said "oh please don't confuse the issue" but
> something good has come of it (ok, I'm not sure if anyone complained

Chris,

You may notice that all the parts of your message I have left in here
have referred to alternative version brached from the original e.g.:

EGCS - Not GCC
GNAT For Linux - Not just GNAT
XEmacs - Not Emacs
Gnus - Not GNUS (Subtle this one!)
XFree86 - Not ??
ada-mode (from ACT) - ada-mode (from FSF)

So basically everything that people have branched off from an original
package has been called something different *except* for ada-mode from
ACT. This is the point I'm trying to make.

ACT's ada-mode, for GNAT users *may* be the best thing since sliced
bread, but it's still called ada-mode, not gnat-mode. I (and Brian)
obviously are really just suggesting that ada-mode should simply have
had the gnat-specific enhancements added asa a separate package
(gnat-mode) that required ada-mode. This is not a difficult thing to do,
and now we've started to discuss things, it seems that we may all get
what we want to some extent.

John

EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[dewar]

This is to announce that Richard Stallman has formally
designated Emmanuel Briot as the official maintainer
of Ada mode for EMACS. Emmanuel Briot is an employee of
Ada Core Technologies, but will be doing this work with
a GNU hat on, and of course all work will be assigned to
the Free Software Foundation. Ada Core Technologies is
happy to make this contribution of effort to the continued
development of GNU software.

With regard to recent discussions on this newsgroup,
Richard Stallman's view is that it is proper to give
precedence to GNAT in the development of this facility,
since "GNU programs should generally give preference to
other free software, and especially to other GNU software."

The policy here will be to include all useful
contributions, and to provide facilities that are generally
useful. Certainly there will be no deliberate attempt to
impede the use of EMACS with Ada compilers other than GNAT,
no one suggests that would be reasonable, so we expect that
many of the facilities of Ada mode in EMACS will continue
to be usable by other compilers. However, in accordance
with the direction requested by Richard Stallman, providing
special functionality for use with compilers other than
GNAT will not be a priority in our continued development
effort.

We will rejuvenate and maintain the EMACS Ada mode mailing
list, and we will make an announcement here concerning that
list in the near future. We suggest that further
discussions of technical details for Ada mode can most
fruitfully be held on that mailing list.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[Chris Morgan]

This point is moot now (see Prof. Dewar's announcement) but I thought
I'd respond anyway.


John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> writes:

> You may notice that all the parts of your message I have left in here
> have referred to alternative version brached from the original e.g.:
> 
> EGCS - Not GCC
> GNAT For Linux - Not just GNAT
> XEmacs - Not Emacs
> Gnus - Not GNUS (Subtle this one!)
> XFree86 - Not ??
> ada-mode (from ACT) - ada-mode (from FSF)
> 
> So basically everything that people have branched off from an original
> package has been called something different *except* for ada-mode from
> ACT. This is the point I'm trying to make.

You are correct as far as you go, however the above are more like
marketing names, since the software is in each case a drop-in
replacement which in practice works the same. To use GNAT for linux I
still type gnatmake, to use Gnus I type M-x gnus and to run XFree86 I
type startx (or perhaps init 4). XFree86 in particular corresponds
exactly to X/Xt from the point of view of the user (X protocol, XLib,
Xt) it just has some nifty stuff in the X-server
department. Admittedly XEmacs is normally installed as xemacs. By this
reasoning if the file was called ACT-ada-mode-for-gnat.tar.gz but
became ada-mode.el it wouldn't be that different from the above but
you might be happier.

Still, if we're only talking about names it's not so important. What I
didn't like was the implication of wrongdoing or misrepresentation.

> 
> ACT's ada-mode, for GNAT users *may* be the best thing since sliced
> bread, but it's still called ada-mode, not gnat-mode. I (and Brian)
> obviously are really just suggesting that ada-mode should simply have
> had the gnat-specific enhancements added asa a separate package
> (gnat-mode) that required ada-mode. This is not a difficult thing to do,
> and now we've started to discuss things, it seems that we may all get
> what we want to some extent.

It looks like the Emacs+proprietary Ada compiler users may have to
pull in their horns here, see the announcement, but of course you can
get together and and make an Ada-Mode for ProprietaryAda team if you
want. If you do and if there is good work done I'm sure Emmanuel Briot
will be happy to collaborate with you.

An interesting discussion here anyway, I hadn't thought about all
these splits in this light before.

Cheers,

Chris
-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis at ix.netcom.com                http://mihalis.net

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[John McCabe]

dewar@gnat.com wrote:

>In article <36b9f769.3385631@news.demon.co.uk>,
>  john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe) wrote:
>> dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>> Although I would stand by such a statement, mainly with
>> respect to new features, there is a subtlety in this
>> quote in that it doesn't state anywhere that general
>> features of currently available GNU software should be
>> removed and replaced with product specific code (I refer
>> in particular of course to the use of gnatstub in
>> ada-make-body).

>If you want to know Richard Stallman's position here, it is
>that any change to Ada mode should be evaluated ONLY with
>respect to its effect on the users of GNU software.

That's perfectly reasonable.

The problem you have really is that if you make ada-mode awkward to
use with other compilers, then people are simply going to think, "well
is it worth the effort?" and move away from GNU software altogether,
especially as many compilers (especially on Windows NT systems) come
with well integrated GUIs including editors - the editor may be pretty
poor (like Aonix ObjectAda's), but it is the integration with the rest
of they system that can be important. Please note I am not suggesting
that you are likely to do this deliberately of course.

>He objects to any effort or consideration being given to users of
>non-free software, so if you ask for a policy decision here from
>the "official" source, you will in fact get a rather definite
>view along these lines.

>In this particular case, the issue is entirely whether the stub facility
>is improved with respect to its use with GNAT.

>This does not stop someone developing other code that uses some
>other approach usable with another compiler, and if this is also
>useful with GNAT, does not impede its inclusion in the official Ada mode.

>In this particular case, it seemed clear that the change to using
>gnatstub improves the behavior of this feature in the GNU system,
>and that therefore the change is beneficial to users of the GNU system.

I haven't used gnatstub, so I cannot comment, but ada-make-body did
have a lot of problems in V2.27 (that your Version 3.1 is based on)
although I believe that was one of the areas Rolf worked on for V2.29.
I can only assume that gnatstub does a better job, but not everyone
who has Emacs will have gnatstub, and the ada-make-body code was
reasonably serviceable in many situations. The thing to remember is
that ada-make-body is called through a hook into find-file, and that
it would have been a simple matter just to leave ada-make-body as it
was, and change the hook to point to a function that used gnatstub.

>This is, always has been, and will continue to be, the primary
>criterion by which changes to GNU software are judged by the FSF.
>You sale that Rolf was reluctant to make changes that were GNAT
>specific. In fact I suspect that if Richard Stallman had know this,
>he might not have been very happy with the situation.

This was an isolated case regarding ada-xref, I cannot comment on his
general view towards GNAT.

>But as I said in my last note, in practice, overall, I think everyone,
>even those not using GNAT, will find that having someone able to work
>on Ada mode who is fully supported rather than doing it on a volunteer
>basis will work out very well.

I believe it will also. 

>I suggest everyone watch and see how this works over the next few
>months, and withold judgments till we have that experience.

I will certainly be watching.

Although it may sound that way, I'm not trying to be negative about
all this. I think it's probably going to be good for ada-mode, however
in my view, if I have to considerably hack ada-mode.el to make it work
with a compiler I'm using, rather than just replace a hook or function
call with one based on what is already available for GNAT, then I may
decide that the effort involved is not worth it.

I can't see that happening really, but I think it needs to be
considered. GNU software after all needs its users for support, and if
users move away from it on the grounds that it is irreconcilably tied
in to other GNU software, then it is bad news.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[John McCabe]

dewar@gnat.com wrote:

>This is to announce that Richard Stallman has formally
>designated Emmanuel Briot as the official maintainer
>of Ada mode for EMACS.

Glad to hear that this decision has finally been made.

>Emmanuel Briot is an employee of Ada Core Technologies,
>but will be doing this work with a GNU hat on,

won't he look a bit silly :-)

>and of course all work will be assigned to
>the Free Software Foundation. Ada Core Technologies is
>happy to make this contribution of effort to the continued
>development of GNU software.

I'd like to thank ACT for assigning their resources to the development
of ada-mode.

>With regard to recent discussions on this newsgroup,
>Richard Stallman's view is that it is proper to give
>precedence to GNAT in the development of this facility,
>since "GNU programs should generally give preference to
>other free software, and especially to other GNU software."

Although I would stand by such a statement, mainly with respect to new
features, there is a subtlety in this quote in that it doesn't state
anywhere that general features of currently available GNU software
should be removed and replaced with product specific code (I refer in
particular of course to the use of gnatstub in ada-make-body). Rather
it seems the norm for additional (alternative/improved) functionality
that uses external tools etc to be added which can be selected through
customisation options etc, in order to allow users without those tools
to still have the functionality they already had. In actal fact, Rolf
Ebert (previous maintainer of ada-mode) once stated that he had
hesitated to put ada-xref.el (which was always very GNAT specific)
into Emacs because of this.

>The policy here will be to include all useful
>contributions, and to provide facilities that are generally
>useful. Certainly there will be no deliberate attempt to
>impede the use of EMACS with Ada compilers other than GNAT,
>no one suggests that would be reasonable, so we expect that
>many of the facilities of Ada mode in EMACS will continue
>to be usable by other compilers. However, in accordance
>with the direction requested by Richard Stallman, providing
>special functionality for use with compilers other than
>GNAT will not be a priority in our continued development
>effort.

Of course I would not expect you to provide functionality for other
compilers, only customisation support to allow the GNAT commands to be
easily changed for other compilers.

All I really ask is that ada-mode.el should at least provide the
functionality it always did without requiring additional packages,
that the ability be included to extend the functionality through such
additional packages (e.g through gnat-mode for example, and that any
language specific (rather than compiler) enhancements be put into
ada-mode.el.

>We will rejuvenate and maintain the EMACS Ada mode mailing
>list, and we will make an announcement here concerning that
>list in the near future. We suggest that further
>discussions of technical details for Ada mode can most
>fruitfully be held on that mailing list.

Excellent.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[John McCabe]

briot@gnat.com wrote:

>Just wanted to emphasize there that it has been decided with Rolf Ebert (the
>previous maintainer of the ada-mode), John McCabe and Matthew Heaney (the

I don't want the blame for it :-) All I did was get in to discussions
with Rolf, Matt and Emmanuel about what the best way forward would be.
Hopefully the solution we have come up with will be best for all.

>person that would have been the maintainer), that it is a good thing if a
>compagny like ACT is willing to support the ada-mode. As Robert stated, the
>ada-mode will be working with other compilers than GNAT, although I won't be
>developping any new stuff for other compilers (send your patches :-)

Of course, and that's the way it should be.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: Ada mode requests (Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java)

[John McCabe]

Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>This point is moot now (see Prof. Dewar's announcement) but I thought
>I'd respond anyway.

I'm glad you did.

>John McCabe <john.mccabe@gecm.com> writes:

>> You may notice that all the parts of your message I have left in here
>> have referred to alternative version brached from the original e.g.:
>> 
>> EGCS - Not GCC

<..snip..>

>By this reasoning if the file was called ACT-ada-mode-for-gnat.tar.gz
>but became ada-mode.el it wouldn't be that different from the above but
>you might be happier.

Not really. Se my point below*.

>Still, if we're only talking about names it's not so important. What I
>didn't like was the implication of wrongdoing or misrepresentation.

See my point below*.

>> ACT's ada-mode, for GNAT users *may* be the best thing since sliced
>> bread, but it's still called ada-mode, not gnat-mode. I (and Brian)
>> obviously are really just suggesting that ada-mode should simply have
>> had the gnat-specific enhancements added asa a separate package
>> (gnat-mode) that required ada-mode. This is not a difficult thing to do,
>> and now we've started to discuss things, it seems that we may all get
>> what we want to some extent.

>It looks like the Emacs+proprietary Ada compiler users may have to
>pull in their horns here, see the announcement, but of course you can
>get together and and make an Ada-Mode for ProprietaryAda team if you
>want.

I have never tried to suggest that effort be expended by ACT to
actively support proprietary compilers (if it has sounded that way
then I apologise - it wasn't meant to), simply that extensions to
ada-mode.el itself be done in such a way that users of proprietary
compilers are not inconvenienced.

I believe that the changes put out as ada-mode 3.1 by ACT did
inconvenience proprietary compiler users, not necessarily by making it
impossible to be used with other compilers, but by creating a need for
significant effort to be put in by those users to make this happen.

*I have heard a few negative comments regarding that version of
ada-mode from people who have been using ada-mode for years. It sounds
like a number of people have taken 3.1 and tried to use it with
non-GNAT compilers only to find that some of the functionality they
had from ada-mode V2.27 (or 2.28) is no longer available because they
don't have GNAT (or gnatstub in the case of ada-make-body). Now if ACT
had produced GNAT-mode, not ada-mode, or had used some other version
numbering scheme that didn't follow on from previous version of
ada-mode, then I am sure that confusion would not have arisen.

My main aim all along in discussing this has been to make ada-mode
non-proprietary, *including* GNAT.

>If you do and if there is good work done I'm sure Emmanuel Briot
>will be happy to collaborate with you.

Having had numerous correspondence with Emmanuel over the last couple
of weeks, I have confidence that the results of his labour will be of
benefit to the Ada community at large, and he has my support.

>An interesting discussion here anyway, I hadn't thought about all
>these splits in this light before.

I'm glad we have caught your interest :-)


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[John McCabe]

dewar@gnat.com wrote:

>In article <79edut$cup$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>  briot@gnat.com wrote:
>
>  <<send your patches>>
>
>Just to clarify here: patches that are of general use for Ada, and
>relevant to its use on GNAT are definitely welcome. Patches that
>work ONLY for some proprietary compiler are contentious. I doubt
>Richard Stallman would be willing to approve such patches for
>inclusion in the official EMACS sources, so such patches are probably
>not appropriate.

I agree. Patches for other compilers should be forwarded for inclusion
into Elisp Archives, sent to gnu.emacs.sources, maintained by the
vendor and so on like is done with VC-Clearcase. (Unfortunately this
resulted in the version of VC-Clearcase that I got from Rod Whitby's
site being rather out of date with respect to the version of vc.el
that comes with the latest copy of Emacs, but I guess these things
happen!)

>So patches that are specific to some other compiler should probably be
>managed by the vendor of that compiler as an optional addition.

Or by individuals through Elisp archives etc...

>Note that with EMACS, such plug-in additions are of course easy to do,
>and do not typically require recompilation or reinstallation of EMACS.

Of course, which is the whole point of what the discussions I have
been having with yourself, Emmanuel, Rolf and Matt have been about
over the last few weeks i.e. that there was really no need for
ada-mode.el to be hacked around as much as it was to provide the
support you wanted for GNAT, it could have so easily been done by
extension.

>I am doing my best to interpret Richard Stallman's intent here (his
>actual language in private messages to me with respect to proprietary
>compilers was quite definite. I commented to him that there had been
>some discussions about support of other compilers, but they seem to
>be resolved, and he objected to any attempt to "placate" the users of
>other compilers, on the grounds that this had nothing to do with the
>GNU project).

I know I've mentioned users of other compilers in the past, but I
didn't intend this to suggest that they be supported, merely that the
functionality already provided by ada-mode.el that makes it easy to
use different compilers should not be removed from that file, only
extended.

>I think it is useful to keep this in perspective. Both EMACS and GNAT
>are part of the GNU project. It is thus quite natural that EMACS be
>specially aware of the requirements of GNAT.

Granted, but I consider ada-mode to be a facility to assist in
programming in the Ada language, not for programming with the GNAT
compiler. On this basis I would expect default setting should be for
GNAT commands, but I would hope that these could be provided through
configurable function calls.

>As I said in an earlier note, the GNU project is not going to go out
>of its way to make EMACS inconvenient to use for other compilers, but
>it certainly will not make special attempts in the other direction.

Again, all I would ask is that future development of ada-mode should
apply language specific features to ada-mode.el, with GNAT specific
features being provided by external packages, through mechanisms (a
kind of API so to speak) supplied in ada-mode.el where possible, 

>I hope this clarification is useful. There seemed to be some concerns
>in this thread earlier on that it was somehow inappropriate for GNAT
>to be creating a GNAT-specific version of Ada mode, and that this
>was not the official version and was therefore somehow unhelpful.
>Hopefully Richard Stallman's views on this matter are now clear, as
>well as ours.

The only thing I really felt was inappropriate was the use of the term
ada-mode to describe the package you created, rather than GNAT-mode.
Having looked at the code, I believe it would have been possible to
extend ada-mode through additional packages (gnat-mode??) to provide
the functionality you have done, *without* significantly changing the
structure of ada-mode.el.

>In any case, I think in practice the outcome of this development will
>be continued improvement of Ada mode for EMACS that will benefit all
>users of this very useful technology, and we welcome contributions.

I think it has certainly been worth my while 'sticking my oar in' so
to speak as it looks like the future of ada-mode is pretty secure.

>Emmanuel will shortly be posting an announcement here reminding people
>about the EMACS Ada mode mailing list, and will also be releasing an
>updated version of the EMACS Ada mode sources in the very near future
>(his plan is to have frequent updates and releases of this technology).

Sounds good.

I'd personally like to thank ACT again for providing the resources
necessary for Emmanual to do the job.


Best Regards
John McCabe <john@assen.demon.co.uk>

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[dewar]

In article <36b9f769.3385631@news.demon.co.uk>,
  john@assen.demon.co.uk.nospam (John McCabe) wrote:
> dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> Although I would stand by such a statement, mainly with
> respect to new features, there is a subtlety in this
> quote in that it doesn't state anywhere that general
> features of currently available GNU software should be
> removed and replaced with product specific code (I refer
> in particular of course to the use of gnatstub in
> ada-make-body).

If you want to know Richard Stallman's position here, it is
that any change to Ada mode should be evaluated ONLY with
respect to its effect on the users of GNU software. He
objects to any effort or consideration being given to users
of non-free software, so if you ask for a policy decision
here from the "official" source, you will in fact get a
rather definite view along these lines.

In this particular case, the issue is entirely whether the
stub facility is improved with respect to its use with
GNAT. This does not stop someone developing other code that
uses some other approach usable with another compiler, and
if this is also useful with GNAT, does not impede its
inclusion in the official Ada mode. In this particular
case, it seemed clear that the change to using gnatstub
improves the behavior of this feature in the GNU system,
and that therefore the change is beneficial to users of
the GNU system.

This is, always has been, and will continue to be, the
primary criterion by which changes to GNU software are
judged by the FSF. You sale that Rolf was reluctant to
make changes that were GNAT specific. In fact I suspect
that if Richard Stallman had know this, he might not have
been very happy with the situation.

But as I said in my last note, in practice, overall, I
think everyone, even those not using GNAT, will find that
having someone able to work on Ada mode who is fully
supported rather than doing it on a volunteer basis will
work out very well.

I suggest everyone watch and see how this works over the
next few months, and withold judgments till we have that
experience.

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[robert_dewar]

In article <79cvn3$656$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  dennison@telepath.com wrote:

> As someone who is currently getting ready to release some
> OpenSource s/w, I'm curious about this. How exactly does
> one "assign" one's work to the FSF? Is it as simple as
> putting the copyright notice in their name? Does the FSF
> have to be notified somehow?


Of course the assignment of copyright needs the assent of
the assignee. You can't just go putting

   copyright Bill Clinton, all rights reserved

on something you own the copyright too.

Assigning a copyright to the FSF requires a formal legal
agreement (as does any copyright assignment). There are
some standard legal forms for this. Note that the FSF will
not accept assignment unless you provide appropriate
indemnification, see the form for details!

Robert Dewar

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[briot]

Hi,

Just wanted to emphasize there that it has been decided with Rolf Ebert (the
previous maintainer of the ada-mode), John McCabe and Matthew Heaney (the
person that would have been the maintainer), that it is a good thing if a
compagny like ACT is willing to support the ada-mode. As Robert stated, the
ada-mode will be working with other compilers than GNAT, although I won't be
developping any new stuff for other compilers (send your patches :-)

Emmanuel

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[dewar]

In article <79edut$cup$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
  briot@gnat.com wrote:

  <<send your patches>>

Just to clarify here: patches that are of general use for
Ada, and relevant to its use on GNAT are definitely
welcome. Patches that work ONLY for some proprietary
compiler are contentious. I doubt Richard Stallman would
be willing to approve such patches for inclusion in the
official EMACS sources, so such patches are probably not
appropriate. This does not of course mean that it is in
any way wrong, or inappropriate, or undesirable that such
patches should be created, just that the GNU project itself
does not support this kind of activity (for fairly clearly
understandable reasons!)

So patches that are specific to some other compiler should
probably be managed by the vendor of that compiler as an
optional addition. Note that with EMACS, such plug-in
additions are of course easy to do, and do not typically
require recompilation or reinstallation of EMACS.

I am doing my best to interpret Richard Stallman's intent
here (his actual language in private messages to me with
respect to proprietary compilers was quite definite. I
commented to him that there had been some discussions about
support of other compilers, but they seem to be resolved,
and he objected to any attempt to "placate" the users of
other compilers, on the grounds that this had nothing to do
with the GNU project).

I think it is useful to keep this in perspective. Both
EMACS and GNAT are part of the GNU project. It is thus
quite natural that EMACS be specially aware of the
requirements of GNAT.

As I said in an earlier note, the GNU project is not going
to go out of its way to make EMACS inconvenient to use for
other compilers, but it certainly will not make special
attempts in the other direction.

I hope this clarification is useful. There seemed to be
some concerns in this thread earlier on that it was somehow
inappropriate for GNAT to be creating a GNAT-specific
version of Ada mode, and that this was not the official
version and was therefore somehow unhelpful. Hopefully
Richard Stallman's views on this matter are now clear,
as well as ours.

In any case, I think in practice the outcome of this
development will be continued improvement of Ada mode for
EMACS that will benefit all users of this very useful
technology, and we welcome contributions.

Emmanuel will shortly be posting an announcement here
reminding people about the EMACS Ada mode mailing list,
and will also be releasing an updated version of the EMACS
Ada mode sources in the very near future (his plan is to
have frequent updates and releases of this technology).

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

Re: EMACS Ada Mode Maintenance

[Matthew Heaney]

dewar@gnat.com writes:

> But as I said in my last note, in practice, overall, I
> think everyone, even those not using GNAT, will find that
> having someone able to work on Ada mode who is fully
> supported rather than doing it on a volunteer basis will
> work out very well.

I really think this is the best situation.  I was afraid that the
ada-mode sources would diverge, with ACT making their changes and an
official maintainer making other changes, but this has now been
resolved.

We should all be thankful that ACT is willing to actually fund the
maintenance of ada-mode.  This is a really great thing.