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: 103376,5b0235b23a9db0f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-02 08:50:10 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!supernews.com!137.192.100.17.MISMATCH!upp1.onvoy!onvoy.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gblx.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: Robert Dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:38:16 GMT Organization: Deja.com Message-ID: <95enpn$66m$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <3A7A2C91.9293E7E2@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 02 16:38:16 2001 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U) X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x67.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:4868 Date: 2001-02-02T16:38:16+00:00 List-Id: In article , comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote: > From: Bob Leif > To: Jeff Carter et al. <> Bob, it seems like you are writing this without first finding out what is going on right now, which might be a good idea, since this procedure has been discussed and agreed on, and is being actively used now, and is unlikely to change without some very good arguments. The current procedure is the following. For language extensions an "amendment" class AI is prepared, this is processed by the ARG into a fully formed, fully worked out, language extension proposal which is then approved by the ARG, and subsequently by WG-9. Vendors are then free to implement these extensions. It is typically likely that at least one vendor will do so, since if it is the case that no vendors see any value in implementing a feature (considering their customer needs), the proposal is unlikely to fly in the first place. The idea is that eventually any revision of Ada might include some or all of these extensions in either their unmodfied form, or perhaps a modified form (like the rest of the language at that stage, they would be subject to revision). In terms of the existing features in the language, as you know a corrigendum has already been approved that would of course be the starting point for a new standard. In the case of this particular proposal (on which I have not commented simply because I have seen no good argument for its utility (it would be nice to see a convincing example of an application that would benefit from this proposal, rather than simply language proposals), the proper approach is to convince at least one member of the ARG to prepare an AI, or alternatively prepare a complete AI, and submit it for consideration. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/