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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5894fe67040038b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-26 12:12:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.hanau.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-2-188.cvx6.telinco.NET!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 20:05:59 -0000 Message-ID: <9tu7nj$4v9lc$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> References: <9s9iti$g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5ee5b646.0111081953.31e2633c@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0111121351.27897bc4@posting.google.com> <9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com> <9tsd63$4jjng$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <5ee5b646.0111260742.2a0d9357@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-2-188.cvx6.telinco.net (212.1.135.188) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1006805556 5220012 212.1.135.188 (16 [25716]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17002 Date: 2001-11-26T20:05:59+00:00 List-Id: > > But just because they were originally intended for a > > certain purpose, > > doesn't mean they cannot be used for another purpose (in > > addition), does it? > > It should if you are following good language design > principles. There is no point in using the same attribute > name for two different purposes. Yes there is: simplicity. > Also, extending the meaning of 'Version would be a language > extension that would create a non-conforming variant of > Ada. No it wouldn't. Changing the meaning would, but extending it specifically does not. My suggestion was purely to do with extending the ways in which the attributes (Version and Body_Version) are used; at no point was my suggestion to prevent them from doing what the RM95 requires. > > Far be it from me to wish to perpetuate any confusion, > > but often confusion is a problem cured by good > > documentation, and doesn't necessarily require > > new attributes. > You can cure someones confusion with documentation if the > confusion arises from misunderstanding. If the confusion > stems from confused language design, such as in this case > suggesting the use of 'Version to mean two rather unrelated > things, then documentation won't be enough. I'm sorry, but the confusion in this case is all yours, Robert! -- Best wishes, Nick Roberts