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: 1997/03/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 222866376 Distribution: world References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5fdu5d$hn5@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@murlibobo.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) writes: > dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > > > ... 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. > > Certainly there is plenty of disagreement about whether or not GC > should be provided. But it's not clear to me that you couldn't achieve > concensus about a minimal portable API for GC, for those > implementations that do provide it. What makes you think this would be > so hard? I could not agree more with this position and the apparent sentiment behind it. Whether or not it is achievable, I don't know, but it is anything but a silly or "gratuitous rubbish". /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com