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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.uni-weimar.de!medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de!lucks From: Stefan.Lucks@uni-weimar.de Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Augusta: An open source Ada 2012 compiler (someday?) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:55 +0100 Organization: Bauhaus-Universitaet Weimar Message-ID: References: <1f0a85a6-ea4d-4d30-8537-0ce9063f992a@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323329-1598160036-1395740276=:10474" X-Trace: pinkpiglet.scc.uni-weimar.de 1395740074 26693 141.54.178.228 (25 Mar 2014 09:34:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@pinkpiglet.scc.uni-weimar.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:34:34 +0000 (UTC) X-X-Sender: lucks@debian In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) X-Original-Bytes: 3293 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185339 Date: 2014-03-25T10:37:55+01:00 List-Id: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-1598160036-1395740276=:10474 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Mon, 24 Mar 2014, Randy Brukardt wrote: > "J Kimball" wrote in message > news:lgopof$unl$1@loke.gir.dk... >> Ada has become the American tax code. It's becoming abundantly clear=20 >> that there has to be a massive break in backward compatibility in the=20 >> next revision of the language that makes writing compilers easier, not= =20 >> just keeping AdaCore in business, but breaking out of the framework of= =20 >> Ada 95. > > I'd be in favor of that, but I'm dubious that the customers that support= =20 > Ada would want to make that sort of change. And if the customers don't=20 > come along, then there is little energy for anything to happen. After=20 > all, most hobbyest driven projects tend to wane after a couple of years,= =20 > and that's not going to work for the sorts of long-lived projects that=20 > Ada is best at. What about moving not-so-often used language features into an annex? Thus, if your customers demand the feature, you are allowed to support it.= =20 Furthermore, anyone supporting that feature would do so so in a completely= =20 compatible way. But if you don't want to support that feature, or you can't for some=20 reason, you are allowed to support Ada 20XY without that annex. As an example, I would consider interfaces. The support for multiple=20 inheritance from "interface" could could be moved into an annex, and thus= =20 become optional for the language implementer. The key-word "interface"=20 should remain reserved, for compatibility reasons. ------ I love the taste of Cryptanalysis in the morning! ------ --Stefan.Lucks (at) uni-weimar.de, Bauhaus-Universit=E4t Weimar, Germany-- --8323329-1598160036-1395740276=:10474--