Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

The language syntax cannot keep changing to suit the whims of every single
possible user. Today it would be OO-types that want object.method syntax.
Tomorrow, who else will be standing in line saying "I'd use Ada, but only if
they eliminate that begin-end thing in favor of {}"? Pretty soon, instead of
syntactic-sugar, you've got syntactic-s**t. The syntax of the language
should only be changed in the face of some fundamental flaw that makes it
impossible (or at least extremely difficult) to get some important, new
capability.

The language is what it is. If OO-programmers won't use it without
object.method and C/C++ programmers won't use it without {} or #include,
then so be it. It shouldn't be modified just because someone prefers a
different syntax.

Perhaps we can suggest writing a pre-processor?

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/


"Lutz Donnerhacke" <lutz@iks-jena.de> wrote in message
news:slrn9sb4q1.hv.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de...
> * Robert*@ wrote:
> >We can argue this for many years to come. Technical discussions on this
> >mean very little any more. At the end of the day, if you want more people
> >to use Ada, Ada must implements the class construct and allow programmers
> >to use object.method().
>
> I do not want people to use Ada if they do not like it. They will find a
> grain of salt in every line and spread bad rumors about this language.