Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>]

On 22 Feb 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
> iBrian said
> 
> <<        Seriously, I was convinced at the end of that discussion that the
> restriction was necessary for "political" reasons. But stuff like this
> library makes me more sore about it. Ada could have been a better language.
> Oh well.>>
> 
> Yes, but best is the enemy of good :-)

	Of course. I am still convinced that the compromise was correct.
If the issue is ever revisited in the design of a future "Ada-like"
language, all of the GNAT code that uses Unrestricted_Access will 
provide support to those who argue for removing the restriction.

> Sure everyone has a few pet peeves. Tuck will never forgive Robert for
> helping to keep 'Class for untagged types out (neither will Bob Duff),
> and Robert will never forgive Tuck for refusing to fight for in out
> parameters for functions (but can't blame Bob, he agrees with me on
> that one).
> 
> P.S. a giant :-) applies to the last paragraph :-)

	It would be great if all of the minutes of those design discussions 
were HTMLified. (So, why *didn't* you want 'Class for untagged types?) 
> 
> Note that the particular case at hand (restricting 'Access on subprograms
> because of dificulties with display implementations) did not turn out to
> be a theoretical concern. Two of the currently validated Ada 95 compilers
> (Aonix and RR), both use displays. Now who can say if this one thing would
> have been enough to seriously discombobulate those two implementations (at
> the time, both vendors thought it was significant).

	I think not delaying these compilers was a good enough reason,
and was much more compelling than the technical arguments. But I can 
still be sore, can't I? ;-)

-- Brian