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,a0224dc3d1e52f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: Ada-G, was Re: Streams and Concurrency Date: 1999/01/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 428742923 References: <76c3tv$acs@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <76cat4$2ldc$1@news.gate.net> <76dn7b$a35@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <76fe92$46c$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <76g91o$udt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <368bdf3c.3097724@news.pacbell.net> Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article Brian Rogoff writes: > I agree completely, but the message I get from this interesting discussion > is that vendors should agree on Ada fixes (based on customer input amongst > other things) a bit faster than once a decade. They do, but the process is still slow and deliberate. During the (officially just over eleven years) between Ada 83 and Ada 95, there were a half-dozen cases where the Ada Rapporteur Group issued Nonbinding interpretations, one of them on raising Contstraint_Error instead of Program_Error. The goal of these NBIs was to allow implementors to move in the direction that the new language revision would move without forcing any particular schedule. In cases where the language was unclear but all compilers behaved consistantly, we enforced the de facto standard with binding interpretations. The official process with Ada 95 may be somewhat different since we intend to issue corrigenda consolidating the AIs, but the results should be the same--a slow evolution in the definition of the language. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...