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,c08a7609345f4e5 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Limited use for limited with? Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <887059ad-86c3-4de9-b8b8-043bdf1573a9@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com> References: <853314bc-0f79-435f-86a5-d7bcdd610731@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <2d380627-480e-4093-9a0f-a88beb70b189@q28g2000prb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1285701882 31351 127.0.0.1 (28 Sep 2010 19:24:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:24:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14300 Date: 2010-09-28T12:24:42-07:00 List-Id: On Sep 28, 10:31=A0am, Robert A Duff wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes: > > So it really rubs me the wrong way to see comments---not from you, but > > from someone else---such as "Ada2012 should relax rules to make > > limited with more useful." > > Well, ahem, the ARG actually IS considering some changes to > make 'limited with' more useful. =A0Sorry, I don't remember > the AI number(s). Well, I see some Binding Interpretations related to "limited with". Most of them seem to be adding missing rules. I didn't see any AI's that would relax any rules, and nothing that would make any changes to the design or have any effect on the feature's usefulness. Unless, of course, there are some AI's that have been assigned but haven't yet made it onto the website. (There aren't any AI12's yet, I hope??) I suppose my rant was somewhat over the top. Sure, ARG makes mistakes, and it's entirely possible that they started off in a wrong direction and kept going that way. Still, there just seems to be something wrong when one party does a lot of work trying to figure out what all the issues are and come up with the best solution they can, and someone else who doesn't understand all the issues says too facilely, "There's a flaw. You should change it." (I'm not talking about minor and easily fixable flaws like wording errors, some of which I reported, but "flaws" that necessarily arise because the designers had to make some compromises and trade-offs.) I'm not sure why I'm so sensitive to this, particularly since I didn't do any of the work on this feature, but I am. -- Adam