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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard
Date: 1996/09/01
Message-ID: <Dx1zK1.BJD@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 177803821
references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov>
 <506ceh$25o4@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <dewar.841529493@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.841529493@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Peter also says that he thinks ideas for a new standard should be
>gathered.
>
>I disagree, far too early for that, concentrate on how to use the
>current one for the next few years before wasting time ruminating
>on new features when we don't really know Adqa 95 yet.

I agree with Robert -- there's no point in "gathering" these ideas in
any official way.  On the other hand, it's harmles, and a lot of fun, to
speculate about alternate language designs (whether or not they are
realistic ideas for Ada 0X).

- Bob