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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-07 06:17:39 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> <3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com> <3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com> <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 13:17:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.149.78.172 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1065532658 141.149.78.172 (Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:17:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:17:38 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:375 Date: 2003-10-07T13:17:38+00:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com... > All right. But this would not be incompatible with my notion of having a > Conventional Ada Library. Suppose that the ARM defines a package called > CAL and underneath it, the arm defines some things like CAL.Containers > and CAL.OS_Iterface, etc. Maybe these are stable enough to be in the ARM > (I doubt it, but lets accept that for a moment). So long as the ARM > allows the extension of this package, then you've got an "Official" > ballpark in which to play. (Note that you are not allowed to modify or > extend the package Ada - so this is the dead-wrong place in which to put > a library.) > > So once you have this CAL package tree defined and allowed to be > extended, you've got the basis for a library. The ARG, vendors, SIGAda, > etc, could come up with a reference implementation of it and provide it > in source to everyone/anyone - ship it along with the compiler, etc. If > you have some sort of organization that maintains it, they can find a > mechanism to argue over what should be in it and add new things over > time as needed. The next cycle of the ARM revision can take a look at > what has "grown" in the library and decide if any of it should be > declared to be "Standard". If its "Non-Standard" a developer knows it > might be subject to change in a later release. (No big deal because he > has source. A new release that changes things need not pick up some > branch he doesn't want - he can use the source from the older release, > cobble together anything else he wants, etc.) > > The key is that you've got to have some way of saying "I want this new > thing added to the library and I don't want to wait TEN YEARS (that's > practically *forever* in computer years!) to get it." I'm not opposed to > the standard, but you need faster reaction time than this for a library. > > MDC > Well yes 10 years is a long time....We'd need something like the Linux system. By that I mean. Some one develops a new thing, suggests it to makers of Ada (like in linux they give it to the makers of linux) for acceptance into the next release (which typically doesn't take 10 years in most cases). by the end of 10 years if enough makers of Ada have it as part of their compiler then the revision can't overlook it. if it's that popular aside some terminology changes (say you didn't use the underscore in your names and Ada guidelines recommend you should, etc etc). then it gets added into the next revision..... I do agree that 10 years is a very long time and that might be part of the reason which slows down Ada's progress on the popularity charts. it's strength (truely standard language) is also it's qeakness (way too long revision period). I would say either the revisions need to be closer together (a year max instead of 10 years) or allow a principle of ammendment to the standard that could be revised periodically and whatever makes it to that revision would be part of the "official revisison". or some system so that we dont have to wait that long. hence the standard commity either need to be more present and accessible to the Ada community, or form a team of members or non members that could do this regular interval thing. -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com