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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fca456da8e6ec463 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-19 21:18:12 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sjc-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) In-Reply-To: <3A6896B0.20206@acm.org> Message-ID: References: <979792273.15897.0.nnrp-10.9e98cc46@news.demon.co.uk> <3A6896B0.20206@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:18:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.184.139.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sjc-read.news.verio.net 979967912 206.184.139.136 (Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:18:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:18:32 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4229 Date: 2001-01-20T05:18:32+00:00 List-Id: 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