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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fca456da8e6ec463 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-22 08:50:26 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:42:29 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <94hntj$pcq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 22 16:42:29 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x64.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4316 Date: 2001-01-22T16:42:29+00:00 List-Id: In article , comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Beard, Frank wrote: > > Where can we go to see a list of the proposed updates to the language? > > Cf. the Ada Futures Casbah Manifesto at: ^^ that means "compare", I think you mean QV or VD, but perhaps it is better to avoid latin phrases which people are likely to misunderstand anyway and stick to english :-) "See also" would probably be clearest! > > http://lexis.di.fct.unl.pt/ADaLIB/Ada_Futures/casbah.cgi This seems to be designed to be as inaccessible as possible A nasty complicated URL, impossible to remember, and > Access elements: > > nome => adaphile > senha => :)ot a password (which really should not be necesary, what on earth is the point of a password which you post publicly) which is tricky to read since both colon and right paren can easily be confused with semicolon and right brace :-) Also, on finally getting to this, it is very thin containing two vague ideas not spelled out. I think it would be much more useful for people to use as a starting point: 1. The enhancement AI's being examined by the ARG 2. Ideas spelled out in early Ada 95 mapping documents that were rejected. In many cases, these were completely worked out, and everyone agreed they were in isolation reasonable, but there was general agreement (perhaps by everyone except the design team :-) that the proposal had to be simplified so some perfectly reasonable, very nicely designed features were omitted. For example, the extended exception design is very worth while looking at, although it should probably be reexamined with an eye to interoperation with C++. Another proposal to look at most certainly is 'Class applied to non-tagged objects. There were several reasons for rejecting this including: 1. It was felt to weaken the typing system too much 2. It was felt to create confusion wrt tagged types 3. It would have required major RM rewriting Historically it was reason 3 that was considered very significant, but that's ironic, since (against the advice of some of us :-) the RM was completely rewritten in a totally different style in any case. So given that 3 has disappeared as a reason, it is worth arguing 1 and 2 again. Perhaps we could even consider the class x is .... proposal again :-) > > | |,| | | |RuaFranciscoTaborda24RcD 2815-249CharnecaCaparica 351+939354005 > |M|A|R|I|O| > |A|M|A|D|O|DepartmentoDeInformaticaFCT/UNL 2825-114 Caparica 351+212958536 > |A|L|V|E|S| fax 212948541 > | | | | | | maa@di.fct.unl.pt FCT 212948300 > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/