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: 103376,5997b4b7b514f689
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@best.com>
Subject: Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length
Date: 1997/02/22
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.970222172828.16234B-100000@shellx.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 220759674
References: <5ds40o$rpo@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
 <33032AE2.666F@mds.lmco.com><dewar.855848896@merv>
 <33037A74.44AF@mds.lmco.com><dewar.855929857@merv> <3304D791.489C@acm.org>
 <dewar.855983270@merv><JSA.97Feb16144316@alexandria> <dewar.856305993@merv>
 <JSA.97Feb21210228@alexandria>
 <Pine.SGI.3.95.970221224632.11961B-100000@shellx.best.com>
 <dewar.856619522@merv>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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