Re: Ada Core Technologies announces GNATCOM

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Marin D. Condic wrote:
> Is there some planned ISO committee or some such to start taking
> revision suggestions to the language? If Ada holds to the original model
> of a new standard every 10 or so years, I'd think now would be the time
> to start discussions.

I don't think the DOD will fund it :-(.

> Actually, I don't think Ada95 needs a whole lot of revision. 

I agree.

> The new language plugged most, if not all, of the flaws in Ada83 and I
> don't see any major new programming theories that need language support
> in which you can't get there from here. 

I'd like to see a solution to the "withing problem", convenient MI of 
interface, and downward funargs. An out mode for functions would be
great but we'll never see it, so I just hope the Rosen Trick isn't
outlawed even if it is a (very clever) hack. 

There are some restrictions on protected types that I find annoying, but
as I use mostly the sequential subset of Ada I'll let someone else whine. 

> Aside from maybe filing down a few burrs
> here and there, I think what Ada05 needs is merely some additional
> annexes that spell out more optional libraries. (Data structures? Math
> libraries? Bindings to specific platforms? I really like the model that
> exists now for annexes: "You don't have to do this if you don't want to,
> but if you *do* support this feature, it must conform to the
> following....")

This doesn't need to be standardized by ISO. A few widely used and
portable libraries would be good enough.
 
> Anybody heard of any activity from the group working on Ada libraries?

The silence is deafening.

-- Brian