Re: calander package

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

Marin David Condic wrote in message <98o2b5$46t$1@nh.pace.co.uk>...
>That ought to be a clue to the powers-that-be in the Language Design
>Business. If its something everyone ends up building - only with slight
>variations - then maybe having a standard, language supplied (or at
least
>approved) version of it would be A Good Thing.


I don't think anyone argues that having something would be a good thing.

The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what it ought to
be. If you look at the various packages mentioned in this thread, you'll
discover that they all are very different. That would make it hard to
have agreement. (It is usually the case that the issues that everyone
understands are the ones that are the hardest to resolve -- because
everyone has an opinion.)

In addition, most of them have little or no documentation. And none of
them come close to the level of documentation required in a language
standard. The Ada 95 packages have plenty of problems caused by
omissions; we don't need a repeat of that with any new packages.

The problem is that most people are happy to do the fun part of defining
a spec. and maybe even writing a reference implementation, but hardly
anyone is willing to go through the work of a properly documented
proposal. The ARG wants proposals, not random good ideas. (We can
generate plenty of those without any help!)

                    Randy.