Marin D. Condic a �crit dans le message : 39103CBE.7D5B9F4E@quadruscorp.com... > Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > > The difficult point is to what extent should libraries go to the standard. > > In 83, the line of the party was that there was no need to put libraries > > that could easily be written by the user; that was the reason for not having > > complex types, for example. In 95, it was recognized that this lead too > > often to people rewriting all the time the same modules with slightly > > different interfaces, and the borderline was moved to include more > > libraries - but certainly not all libraries that could be useful, or even > > desirable. > > > I can understand the reasons for arguing that the standard should not > include libraries that are not "language" issues. Obviously the > hard-core end of the spectrum which wanted few/no libraries is no longer > in vogue with Ada95 specifying many new libraies. It would seem to me > that there might be some big advantages (for the language, at least, if > not for vendors) to letting the pendulum swing further in the other > direction. Why not specify even more libraries than are presently > available so long as they are optional annexes? > Here in the Ada world, we tend to think that nothing is "standard", sometimes not even usable, before it has been rubber-stamped by ISO. A LOT of useful stuff in other languages is pretty "standard" without having ever been endorsed by any official body. Yes, making libraries widely available is a good thing, but waiting for ISO to endorse it would be much too long a process. Put the good stuff on the web, let everybody use it, and call it a "de facto" standard. If you can persuade your Ada vendor to provide the libraries in its standard distribution, it's even better. -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (Rosen.Adalog@wanadoo.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://pro.wanadoo.fr/adalog