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: 103376,8c424d8135e68278 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-13 14:08:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!portc03.blue.aol.com!peerfeed.news.psi.net!filter.news.psi.net!psinr!client!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <9v4jsj$bd1$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> Subject: Re: Ada2005 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:39:04 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.62.124 X-Trace: client 1008268742 156.46.62.124 (Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:39:02 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 13:39:02 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17885 Date: 2001-12-13T12:39:04-06:00 List-Id: (I posted this message on Tuesday, but I don't see that it got to Google, so I figure hardly anyone got it. Sorry to the handful of you that saw it the first time. - RLB) Ted Dennison wrote in message ... >In article <9v4jsj$bd1$1@infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>, Peter Hermann says... >> >>is there consensus on the next standard's name? I have seen >>Ada200x >>Ada20xx >>Ada0x >>Ada0y [why?] >>... [insert your favorite] >> >>What about fixing it to Ada2005? > >Ada95 was known as Ada9x up until right around 1995 when it became clear that >1995 would be the year that the current (mostly finished) draft would be >approved. I can remember early versions of Gnat that referred to the language as >Ada9x. Therefore x = 5 in this context. Thus the moniker "Ada 0y" (we don't know the value of 'y' yet). Indeed, it was known as that (informally) during the Ada 9x design process. As in, "we'll figure out how to do that in Ada 0y". >As far as I know, there isn't even really any movement towards making a new >standard. So putting a year on it would be silly in the extreme. There is a plan to produce an amendment in the 2005 time-frame. However, these things are hard to get done on time. I believe that Ada 9x was supposed to be finished by the end of 1992. So it was only 25 months late. And that's pretty good for an international standard. In any case, there isn't remotely a consensus yet on what should be in the amendment. So speculating on when the document will be done is quite premature. Randy Brukardt ARG Editor