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: 103376,60dd4fe7723c0ef
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies announces GNATCOM
Date: 2000/04/09
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004091420290.11308-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 608850955
References: <8coc5e$do2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <iqTH4.4563$Qy3.316083@news.pacbell.net> <2000Apr9.073658.1@eisner>
 <38F0C28C.A9A80FCF@quadruscorp.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 955315958 202 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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