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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6ea0a5c35bbeef5e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-17 01:38:53 PST Path: nntp.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!212.43.194.69!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!nerim.net!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: calander package Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:55:40 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <98qvnk$686$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <98ltmj$90q$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <98o2b5$46t$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <84Vr6.4685$7e6.1798617@homer.alpha.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 984678964 6406 136.170.200.133 (15 Mar 2001 17:56:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Mar 2001 17:56:04 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: nntp.stanford.edu comp.lang.ada:91489 Date: 2001-03-15T17:56:04+00:00 List-Id: I grok that. There's always debate about things like which format ought to be the "standard" format - or if it should support multiple formats, etc. Agreement is hard and, yes, most people don't want to devote the time needed for a formal specification. Many OS's have a "standard" date format they use - perhaps that would be sufficient? If there was a single function that had a time input parameter and returned a string in some "implementation defined" format, that would at least be a hook to some OS service that may be pretty common. Note that somehow ANSI C succeeded in providing asctime as a function to provide a string version of time. (Someone is now going to jump in here and say "Well use Ada to bind to it!!!" :-) Maybe a similar definition could be borrowed? MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Randy Brukardt" wrote in message news:84Vr6.4685$7e6.1798617@homer.alpha.net... > I don't think anyone argues that having something would be a good thing. > > The problem is that everyone has a different idea of what it ought to > be. If you look at the various packages mentioned in this thread, you'll > discover that they all are very different. That would make it hard to > have agreement. (It is usually the case that the issues that everyone > understands are the ones that are the hardest to resolve -- because > everyone has an opinion.) > > In addition, most of them have little or no documentation. And none of > them come close to the level of documentation required in a language > standard. The Ada 95 packages have plenty of problems caused by > omissions; we don't need a repeat of that with any new packages. > > The problem is that most people are happy to do the fun part of defining > a spec. and maybe even writing a reference implementation, but hardly > anyone is willing to go through the work of a properly documented > proposal. The ARG wants proposals, not random good ideas. (We can > generate plenty of those without any help!) > > Randy. > > >