When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Julian Morrison]

Two things I'd like to see included: Java-style "interfaces" with
multiple inheritance, and cross-platform sockets as a standard annex.

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Robert Dewar]

In article
<979792273.15897.0.nnrp-10.9e98cc46@news.demon.co.uk>,
  "Julian Morrison" <julian@extropy.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Two things I'd like to see included: Java-style "interfaces"
> with multiple inheritance, and cross-platform sockets as a
> standard annex.


Well it is premature to wonder about the next Ada revision,
but not premature to wonder about possible additions. In
particular, you should read Tuck's suggestion on the first
subject.

I cannot see socket stuff ever being included in the formal
standard, but it is reasonable to want a commonly used package
around. The next version of GNAT (3.14) has a full
implementation of a sockets interface (GNAT.Sockets) that
works on nearly all targets (all byut VMS at the current time).
We just added this (it is based on the sockets package used
in GLADE).

Robert Dewar


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Ted Dennison]

In article <9471sc$8d0$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:

> I cannot see socket stuff ever being included in the formal
> standard, but it is reasonable to want a commonly used package
> around. The next version of GNAT (3.14) has a full
> implementation of a sockets interface (GNAT.Sockets) that

Of course if you'd like something higher-level that sockets, Annex E
might be what you are looking for.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Tucker Taft]

Julian Morrison wrote:
> 
> Two things I'd like to see included: Java-style "interfaces" with
> multiple inheritance, and cross-platform sockets as a standard annex.

Java-style interfaces are proposed in the Amendment AI 251; see:

  http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin-acats/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00251.DOC?rev=1.3

I would agree that some kind of sockets interface should be considered,
something on the level of java.net.Socket and java.net.ServerSocket.
Perhaps also an HTTP servlet interface.  These might want to be
"secondary" standards, or perhaps part of an "Internet" annex.

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@avercom.net   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Chief Technology Officer, AverCom, Inc. (A Titan Company) Burlington, MA  USA
(AverCom was formed 1/1/01 from the Commercial Division of AverStar)
(http://www.averstar.com/services/ebusiness_applications.html)

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Brian Rogoff]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Julian Morrison wrote:

No idea about the next version of the standard. 2007 is my extrapolation
from your sequence, but I hope it's much sooner ;-)

> Two things I'd like to see included: Java-style "interfaces" with
> multiple inheritance, 

http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin-acats/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00251.DOC?rev=1.3

Check out the discussion here over the last few weeks. As long as you're
wishing, how about merging OO features and protected types, removing the 
restriction on protected types calling blocking operations, etc...?

> and cross-platform sockets as a standard annex.

It doesn't seem likely. Any problem using AdaSockets? 

http://www.rfc1149.net/devel/adasockets

-- Brian

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Julian Morrison]

"Tucker Taft" <stt@averstar.com> wrote:

> I would agree that some kind of sockets interface should be considered,
> something on the level of java.net.Socket and java.net.ServerSocket.
> Perhaps also an HTTP servlet interface.  These might want to be
> "secondary" standards, or perhaps part of an "Internet" annex.

My own preference would be to avoid standardizing any *particular*
protocol, even HTTP - since they chop and change and upgrade much faster
than languages do.

RE: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.]

From: Bob Leif
To: Tucker Taft et al.
The appropriate body for Internet standards is the World Wide Web
Consortium, W3C (http://www.w3.org/). As a first step, wherever possible an
Ada implementation, binding, API, etc should be included wherever the
equivalent in Java has been included. We should liaise with W3C. Ada is a
very good fit with XML. I believe that several eminent Ada Gurus are in easy
commuting to Cambridge. Maybe, we could recruit someone from W3C to talk or
give a tutorial at SIGAda 2001.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Tucker Taft
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:02 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)


Julian Morrison wrote:
>
> Two things I'd like to see included: Java-style "interfaces" with
> multiple inheritance, and cross-platform sockets as a standard annex.

Java-style interfaces are proposed in the Amendment AI 251; see:

  http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin-acats/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00251.DOC?rev=1.3

I would agree that some kind of sockets interface should be considered,
something on the level of java.net.Socket and java.net.ServerSocket.
Perhaps also an HTTP servlet interface.  These might want to be
"secondary" standards, or perhaps part of an "Internet" annex.

--
-Tucker Taft   stt@avercom.net   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Chief Technology Officer, AverCom, Inc. (A Titan Company) Burlington, MA
USA
(AverCom was formed 1/1/01 from the Commercial Division of AverStar)
(http://www.averstar.com/services/ebusiness_applications.html)

RE: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Beard, Frank]

Where can we go to see a list of the proposed updates to the language?

Frank

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Nick Williams]

Brian Rogoff wrote


> Check out the discussion here over the last few weeks. As long as you're
> wishing, how about merging OO features and protected types, removing the 
> restriction on protected types calling blocking operations, etc...?

With regard to the former; did you by any chance read the article on 
that precise subject in the current issue of the ACM's Transactions on 
Programming Languages and Systems (May 2000)?

If so, what do you think of the authors' approach? If not, I hope the 
reference will be of some interest...

Cheers,

Nick Williams.

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Tucker Taft]

Nick Williams wrote:
> 
> Brian Rogoff wrote
> 
> > Check out the discussion here over the last few weeks. As long as you're
> > wishing, how about merging OO features and protected types, removing the
> > restriction on protected types calling blocking operations, etc...?
> 
> With regard to the former; did you by any chance read the article on
> that precise subject in the current issue of the ACM's Transactions on
> Programming Languages and Systems (May 2000)?
> 
> If so, what do you think of the authors' approach? If not, I hope the
> reference will be of some interest...

We are considering 2 alternative approaches to supporting
extensible protected types, one which is based pretty closely
on the TOPLAS article, and one which is significantly simpler,
based largely on work done during the original 9X process.  For the
"simpler" approach, see:

    http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin-acats/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00250.DOC?rev=1.2

The one more closely based on the TOPLAS article hasn't made it into
the ada-auth database yet.

> Cheers,
> 
> Nick Williams.

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@avercom.net   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Chief Technology Officer, AverCom, Inc. (A Titan Company) Burlington, MA  USA
(AverCom was formed 1/1/01 from the Commercial Division of AverStar)
(http://www.averstar.com/services/ebusiness_applications.html)

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Tucker Taft]

"Beard, Frank" wrote:
> 
> Where can we go to see a list of the proposed updates to the language?

Look at:

   http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin-acats/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-SUMMARY.DOC?rev=1.74

and search for "Class: Amendment" (they are toward the bottom of the file).

> 
> Frank

-- 
-Tucker Taft   stt@avercom.net   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
Chief Technology Officer, AverCom, Inc. (A Titan Company) Burlington, MA  USA
(AverCom was formed 1/1/01 from the Commercial Division of AverStar)
(http://www.averstar.com/services/ebusiness_applications.html)

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Brian Rogoff]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Nick Williams wrote:
> Brian Rogoff wrote
> 
> 
> > Check out the discussion here over the last few weeks. As long as
> you're > wishing, how about merging OO features and protected types,
> removing the > restriction on protected types calling blocking
> operations, etc...?
> 
> With regard to the former; did you by any chance read the article on 
> that precise subject in the current issue of the ACM's Transactions on 
> Programming Languages and Systems (May 2000)?

Unfortunately, I haven't read it yet, but it's in the queue. It's amazing
how much less time I have for programming with a two year old running
around the house. 

I have been studied Tucker Taft's AI on the issue, where I saw the ref to
the TOPLAS article. 

> If so, what do you think of the authors' approach? If not, I hope the 
> reference will be of some interest...

Thanks, it's certainly of general interest. I'll post more on the topic
when I've read that article and I've seen the other proposal based on it.  

-- Brian

RE: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Mario Amado Alves]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Beard, Frank wrote:
> Where can we go to see a list of the proposed updates to the language?

Cf. the Ada Futures Casbah Manifesto at:

  http://lexis.di.fct.unl.pt/ADaLIB/Ada_Futures/casbah.cgi

Access elements:

  nome  => adaphile
  senha => :)ot

| |,| | | |RuaFranciscoTaborda24RcD 2815-249CharnecaCaparica 351+939354005
|M|A|R|I|O|
|A|M|A|D|O|DepartmentoDeInformaticaFCT/UNL 2825-114 Caparica 351+212958536
|A|L|V|E|S|                                                  fax 212948541
| | | | | |                 maa@di.fct.unl.pt                FCT 212948300

RE: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <mailman.980163387.21417.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
  comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, Beard, Frank wrote:
> > Where can we go to see a list of the proposed updates to
the language?
>
> Cf. the Ada Futures Casbah Manifesto at:
  ^^
that means "compare", I think you mean QV or VD, but perhaps
it is better to avoid latin phrases which people are likely
to misunderstand anyway and stick to english :-) "See also"
would probably be clearest!
>
>   http://lexis.di.fct.unl.pt/ADaLIB/Ada_Futures/casbah.cgi

This seems to be designed to be as inaccessible as possible
A nasty complicated URL, impossible to remember, and

> Access elements:
>
>   nome  => adaphile
>   senha => :)ot

a password (which really should not be necesary, what on earth
is the point of a password which you post publicly) which is
tricky to read since both colon and right paren can easily be
confused with semicolon and right brace :-)

Also, on finally getting to this, it is very thin containing
two vague ideas not spelled out. I think it would be much more
useful for people to use as a starting point:

1. The enhancement AI's being examined by the ARG

2. Ideas spelled out in early Ada 95 mapping documents that
were rejected. In many cases, these were completely worked out,
and everyone agreed they were in isolation reasonable, but
there was general agreement (perhaps by everyone except the
design team :-) that the proposal had to be simplified so some
perfectly reasonable, very nicely designed features were
omitted. For example, the extended exception design is very
worth while looking at, although it should probably be
reexamined with an eye to interoperation with C++.

Another proposal to look at most certainly is 'Class applied
to non-tagged objects. There were several reasons for rejecting
this including:

 1. It was felt to weaken the typing system too much
 2. It was felt to create confusion wrt tagged types
 3. It would have required major RM rewriting

Historically it was reason 3 that was considered very
significant, but that's ironic, since (against the advice
of some of us :-) the RM was completely rewritten in a
totally different style in any case.

So given that 3 has disappeared as a reason, it is worth
arguing 1 and 2 again.

Perhaps we could even consider the

   class x is ....

proposal again :-)



>
> | |,| | | |RuaFranciscoTaborda24RcD 2815-249CharnecaCaparica
351+939354005
> |M|A|R|I|O|
> |A|M|A|D|O|DepartmentoDeInformaticaFCT/UNL 2825-114 Caparica
351+212958536
> |A|L|V|E|S|
fax 212948541
> | | | | | |                 maa@di.fct.unl.pt
FCT 212948300
>
>


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Pascal Obry]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> > Cf. the Ada Futures Casbah Manifesto at:
>   ^^
> that means "compare", I think you mean QV or VD, but perhaps
> it is better to avoid latin phrases which people are likely
> to misunderstand anyway and stick to english :-) "See also"
> would probably be clearest!

Well this is not comp.lang.latin but here we use "cf." to say
something like "have a look at the reference"... very close
to your "See also" !

Now, for sure, I'm not a latin expert :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Mark Lundquist]

viz. this thread, cf. the barbershop scene in "Get Shorty", i.e., "i.e. vs.
e.g."!
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) --mark

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:uwvbnsavi.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
> Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> > > Cf. the Ada Futures Casbah Manifesto at:
> >   ^^
> > that means "compare", I think you mean QV or VD, but perhaps
> > it is better to avoid latin phrases which people are likely
> > to misunderstand anyway and stick to english :-) "See also"
> > would probably be clearest!
>
> Well this is not comp.lang.latin but here we use "cf." to say
> something like "have a look at the reference"... very close
> to your "See also" !
>
> Now, for sure, I'm not a latin expert :)
>
> Pascal.
>
> --
>
> --|------------------------------------------------------
> --| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
> --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
> --|------------------------------------------------------
> --|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
> --|
> --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Mark Lundquist]

Mark Lundquist <mark@rational.com> wrote in message
news:94i5qu$rcm$1@usenet.rational.com...
>
> viz. this thread, cf. the barbershop scene in "Get Shorty", i.e., "i.e.
vs.
   ^^^
   Did I say that?  I did...!
   I meant "vis a vis".
> e.g."!
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) --mark

I'm sticking to English from now on.  Or whatever it is that I speak :-)
--mark

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Keith Thompson]

"Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com> writes:
[...]
> I'm sticking to English from now on.  Or whatever it is that I speak :-)

You're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition.  I think you
meant, "On from now sticking to English I am."

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
MAKE MONEY FAST!!  DON'T FEED IT!!

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Mark Lundquist]

That must be the Forth version...

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message
news:yecae8jjis0.fsf@king.cts.com...
> "Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com> writes:
> [...]
> > I'm sticking to English from now on.  Or whatever it is that I speak :-)
>
> You're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition.  I think you
> meant, "On from now sticking to English I am."
>
> --
> Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
> San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
> MAKE MONEY FAST!!  DON'T FEED IT!!

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Nick Roberts]

"This is the kind of language up with which we will not put!" (Winston
Churchill)

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Robert Dewar]

In article <95fbsk$ggban$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>,
  "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:
> "This is the kind of language up with which we will not put!"
(Winston
> Churchill)


I don't think this quotation is quite accurate, did you check
it???


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[Marin David Condic]

I thought it was "A ludicrous affectation, up with which..."?

Or maybe it was someone else who said that?

MDC

Nick Roberts wrote:

> "This is the kind of language up with which we will not put!" (Winston
> Churchill)

--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/
Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m
Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[David Starner]

On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:16:48 GMT, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <95fbsk$ggban$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>,
>  "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>> "This is the kind of language up with which we will not put!"
>(Winston
>> Churchill)
>
>
>I don't think this quotation is quite accurate, did you check
>it???

fortune has it as

This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.
              -- Winston Churchill

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org

Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

My recollection is that he retorted
"This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put!"
when an editor had blue-penciled a sentence which he had
ended with a preposition.
I believe I read it in one of the six volumes of Churchill's
"The Second World War" back in about 1954.

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3A7C0D13.41AE7BB3@acm.org...
> I thought it was "A ludicrous affectation, up with which..."?
>
> Or maybe it was someone else who said that?
>
> MDC
>
> Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> > "This is the kind of language up with which we will not put!" (Winston
> > Churchill)
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Marin David Condic - Quadrus Corporation - http://www.quadruscorp.com/
> Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ q u a d r u s c o r p . c o m
> Visit my web site at:  http://www.mcondic.com/
>
>     "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
>         --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
> ======================================================================
>
>