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,fdc75443ea18fb32 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-28 07:05:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Queue Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:53:19 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9u2tp1$mdt$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <%QRM7.39743$xS6.65958@www.newsranger.com> <9u0qhb$pq5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u0ujd$rhg$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u10bt$ake$1@news.huji.ac.il> <9u136q$aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9u14o2$d61$1@news.huji.ac.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1006959201 22973 136.170.200.133 (28 Nov 2001 14:53:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Nov 2001 14:53:21 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: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17106 Date: 2001-11-28T14:53:21+00:00 List-Id: I'm in favor of any approach that gets a concensus going about what to select as a component library for Ada. The danger here is debating the issue for too long and ending up with *no* component library as a result. AFAIK, there have been a handful of proposed directions - such as BC's+mods, PragmAda+mods, Ted's list package strawman, etc. So far, there seems to be some motion in the direction of building something from scratch based on Ted's strawman. It seems that this was getting bogged down in a variety of debates about iterators, sorts, library-level instantiations, etc. I don't know if we want to take some kind of vote on it or not - but it seems like it could be a viable direction if we can keep it from getting stalled. I could get behind Ted's package and would be willing to help get it implemented if needed - maybe others would do so as well? Or are there still strong feelings about wanting to make fundamental changes to Ted's strawman that would preclude using it as-is for a start? (Superficial changes that can be added or tweaked later are O.K. in my mind - is the spec good enough that if it were implemented, we'd have an acceptable approach that might get extended/enhanced at a later point?) Or is there still some interest in debating alternative approaches? 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/ "Ehud Lamm" wrote in message news:9u14o2$d61$1@news.huji.ac.il... > > I think this is what I suggested a while back, but I am not sure this is > what you advocate, if I understand the rest of your message. Are you in > favor of this approach? >