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-Thread: 103376,5fbcb931da30b4c1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.scarlet.biz!news.scarlet.biz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 07:24:31 -0600 From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO Rules on upgrading standards References: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:24:28 +0100 Message-ID: <87k5zpkagj.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:6iiwoiBPgRPnwTVY7rMi2UqM5EA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.235.236.127 X-Trace: sv3-fFl/K2sFQgTZbSHGXxLXiDDJAqghnPIMmIYPQWsc6ob+EZBlSyS2tVrCTKIiWibo7uz1xx/226WOQ/B!vJKgONOjDBl3j3qStFgYUAR715X1y/0kjSAAY/v/v4xMld4QHEQfaIsrKOVshhfmOM86cX1sDSM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.be X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@scarlet.biz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8132 Date: 2007-01-14T14:24:28+01:00 List-Id: Robert Leif writes: [about multi-part ISO standards] > Is paragraph (e) above relevant to the Ada standard? At present, Ada is a single standard, ISO/IEC 8652/1995(E) with Technical Corrigendum 1 and Amendment 1. Since Amendment 1, this single-part standard incorporates and supersedes another standard, ISO 13813:1997 (linear algebra). So, the answer to your question is no. See however the recent call for participation in a possible update to ISO 14519, the Ada POSIX binding. POSIX is a multi-part standard. The Rapporteur for the Ada POSIX bindings said that one option would be to incorporate the Ada POSIX bindings into the Ada standard under Ada.Interfaces, but he did not say whether splitting ISO 8652 into several parts was desirable. > If so, would it permit small annual or biannual additions to Ada? I > believe that one of the reasons for the lack of market acceptance > for Ada has been the present 10 year cycle for updating the > standard. In the past, despite being a monolithic standard, Ada has achieved the effects of multi-part standards by placing ASIS and the linear algebra in separate standards (ISO/IEC 15291:1999 and ISO/IEC 13813:1997 respectively). Apparently, that has not helped shorten the revision cycle for the language definition, so I think that the problem lies elsewhere. I think that multi-part standards work best when the working group is so large that it can split into sub-groups effectively. I don't think that that's the case for WG9. In fact, the main problem in WG9 is lack of manpower; that's why they decided to publish Ada 2005 as an Amendment to, rather than a new Edition of the standard. -- Ludovic Brenta.