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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-11 18:20:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> <3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com> <3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com> <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> <3F846B5E.9080502@comcast.net> <3F855460.6020804@noplace.com> <3F86211B.103@comcast.net> <3F8640CA.6090306@noplace.com> <3F86FE09.3050302@comcast.net> <3F8816EB.1010009@noplace.com> <3F88A577.5000803@noplace.com> Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 01:20:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.44.81.214 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1065921641 129.44.81.214 (Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:20:41 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:20:41 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:691 Date: 2003-10-12T01:20:41+00:00 List-Id: By the way, regardless of licensing, have you looked at the first draft? what do you think? -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:3F88A577.5000803@noplace.com... > A license is something to worry about down the road. That's something > the vendors would have to say something about anyway. At this point I'm > concerned about the idea expressed by Robert Eachus that a Conventional > Ada Library be a branch (or several) under the standard library "Ada". > That is, "Ada.Containers" and "Ada.Statistics" and so on. This would be > a wonderful thing since it provides something really natural. Except > that under "normal" rules you are not allowed to extend the package > "Ada" and you may not have everything you need to do it if you could. > That's why I'm objecting. Put it under a separate library or change the > rules for the "Ada" tree so that this is possible to extend and required > that you get source. > > At this point, I'm just stating a perceived requirement that is > something near and dear to my heart - and possibly others: For a > Conventional Ada Library, I want to get the source code and I want to be > able to modify/extend it at will with no special limitations. (Much like > any of the existing container libraries floating around out there.) If > Robert Eachus or someone else who is smarter than me (And Robert really > is *way* smarter than me! :-) can figure out some rule change for the > package "Ada" that gets me this requirement, I'm happy as a pig in > fewmets. :-) If that's not possible, then I think a Conventional Ada > Library ought to exist under its own tree. > > I suppose that Robert's suggestion about renamings might be a good > compromise. Make some "Official" root (Let's call it "CAL") and start > adding branches (like "CAL.Containers" and "CAL.Statistics") They go > through some editor/publisher to make sure they meet requirements and > are released with everyone's compiler in full Ada source. If at a later > date, the ARG decides that, e.g. CAL.Containers, ought to be part of the > Ada standard, you just do a "renames" to Ada.Containers (keeping the > original) and now it is a fully standard, entirely official part of Ada, > complete with its own chapter in the ARM and a full validation suite. > That seems like something that ought to work reasonably well. Do you > think? (It might have problems if it still exists in CAL and the > end-user can modify it. Leave that to the language lawyers to sort out. > *That* problem is *waaaaaay* down the road. We can burn that bridge when > we get to it.) > > MDC > > > MDC > > Stephane Richard wrote: > > > > I think so, seems reasonable for me, but shouldn't it basically depend on > > the licence? or would anything in there have the same licence? or an > > OpenSource Based licence so to speak so that it is available? > > > -- > ====================================================================== > Marin David Condic > I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ > My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm > > Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g > > "All reformers, however strict their social conscience, > live in houses just as big as they can pay for." > > --Logan Pearsall Smith > ====================================================================== >