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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7fb92d04f1e53983
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Future Ada directions
Date: 2000/04/20
Message-ID: <8dmjcq$v3u$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613509035
References: <1e8wfb9.16iypjj5mu35qN%dwalker07@snet.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x28.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Apr 20 09:41:47 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1e8wfb9.16iypjj5mu35qN%dwalker07@snet.net>,
  dwalker07@snet.net (Daryle Walker) wrote:
> At
<http://lglwww.epfl.ch/Team/MW/Ada-Extensions/Ada-Extensions.htm
l>,
> some extenstions to Ada 83 were given.  Are there any of them
that still
> should be considered as improvements to Ada 95 (for Ada 0X)?


All the ideas in this thesis were certainly known to the
Ada 95 design effort, so any that were not included were
deliberately excluded. This does not mean that any one
feature was a bad idea, many useful features did not make
it into Ada 95 because of concern for overall complexity.

A good rule in language design is to remember that every new
feature damages the language, you have to make sure that the
gain is at *least* enough to undo the damage :-)

Mats is very much around, and contributes to the news group,
so perhaps he can tell us which of these ideas he would most
like to see in Ada 0X :-)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.