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: 103376,5997b4b7b514f689
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length
Date: 1997/02/27
Message-ID: <JSA.97Feb27145823@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 222166489
Distribution: world
References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com>
Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.857004623@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

Robert goes off half cocked,

> Jon said
> 
> <<I suppose so.  But the annexes could be so much more useful.  They
> could even act as a kind of inter standard place for certain things
> like this string stuff (assuming some sort of "formalization"
> process) or more interesting GC stuff.>>
> 
> One person's "so much more useful" stuff is another person's
> gratuitious rubbish.

Wow.

> to even considering elaborate pattern matching stuff, there are too
> many ways to approach this problem to decree one as standard. Similarly
> for GC, it is clear that there would be no consensus on this addition.

There are "too many" ways to approach a language design to decree any
as standard.  Sounds pretty silly, eh?

As for the GC example, you yourself suggested this as a possibility.
I believe I still have the post saved where you stated so.


> Sure Jon, you have a pet list of stuff you would like to have avalailable,
> but the annexes are not about pet stuff!

Well, that is your interpretation of what I said.  A pretty odd one at
that.  Shrug.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com