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: 103376,6ea0a5c35bbeef5e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-14 17:44:03 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.eecs.umich.edu!uwm.edu!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <98ltmj$90q$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <98o2b5$46t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: calander package X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500 Message-ID: <84Vr6.4685$7e6.1798617@homer.alpha.net> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:39:52 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.62.124 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 984620420 156.46.62.124 (Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:40:20 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:40:20 CST Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5748 Date: 2001-03-14T19:39:52-06:00 List-Id: 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.