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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac39a12d5faf5b14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-15 19:15:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!diablo.theplanet.net!diablo.theplanet.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:39:10 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CB46975.90408@snafu.de> <3CB77A6B.5090504@snafu.de> <184076622a7c648f157c56e417bd86d4.48257@mygate.mailgate.org> <3CB9375F.8040904@snafu.de> <3CB9AF3C.8030301@snafu.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1018885151 8583 136.170.200.133 (15 Apr 2002 15:39:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Apr 2002 15:39:11 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22578 Date: 2002-04-15T15:39:11+00:00 List-Id: "Michael Erdmann" wrote in message news:3CB9AF3C.8030301@snafu.de... > > Did they manage to get this into an Appendix of the Ada 95 RM, or > did they succeed with there container packages? > Getting any sufficiently complex library into an appendix of the ARM would be very difficult and problematic. You would need to formally specify the behavior and then come up with a formal validation process. Any package or set of packages that might have hundreds of interface details would become a major problem to incorporate into something as formal as the ARM. What needs to happen is to have some kind of second tier of "standard" that doesn't require all that formality. If a thing could be reasonably well described so that an understanding emerged as to what it should be/do and the vendors were willing to include it in an identical way (same interface specs, at least, or reference implementation) in all their implementations, then you've got your "standard" without needing a ***STANDARD*** :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com