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: 103376,71c743c03ed191fe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-22 06:19:19 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp2.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Beginer problem: variable array size Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 09:18:27 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <38993b18.0209191906.b56b982@posting.google.com> <3D8B4CC9.5020202@cogeco.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.bd.99 X-Server-Date: 22 Sep 2002 13:19:19 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29254 Date: 2002-09-22T13:19:19+00:00 List-Id: Having watched the debate go on here about the subject of realtime vs general-purpose libraries, I'd conclude that it would be pretty hopeless to satisfy everyone's objectives. Especially if the goal is to get something into the standard rather than simply provide a reference implementation. >From the perspective of the standard, you'd only want to specify a package spec that *could* be made realtime enough. (No mandate for things that might screw it up - like garbage collection) You'd almost certainly want to avoid having a half-dozen or more different flavors of it (realtime vs non-realtime, task-safe vs non-task-safe, static vs dynamic allocation, etc....) End of the day, I don't think it is a sufficient excuse that the Ada programmer wants something more thorough to justify not (and maybe never) providing libraries. If eventually something gets into the ARM as a standard library, that's great. But I think it would be better to get something general-purpose accepted as a semi-standard in a faster and more flexible manner. Get a container library out there that is generally accepted as the official Ada library and start experimenting with it. In a year or so, you'll know what its weaknesses are and another cut can be made at it. Soon enough you'll have a stable version that may satisfy 80% of the user's needs. (maybe you trash the realtime requirement and tell us realtime guys to go pound sand. we're no worse off than right now where if we want them we've got to write our own.) If that's achieved, *then* you can talk about getting it into the standard - complete with detailed descriptions of the exact, verifiable behavior you need from everything. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ====================================================================== Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote in message news:3D8B4CC9.5020202@cogeco.ca... > > Whereas the Ada programmer wants a library (as a lofty goal) that can > be used both in the general purpose world and be useful in the > realtime world. Based upon some of the posts I've seen over the last > year it might be more practical to fork two different libraries for > this reason (this has already been suggested I think). Yet, it would > be truly nice if they both had the same general signatures where > possible. >