Re: status of Ada STL?

["Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org>]

I agree that endless debate is not going to move the mission forward, but
would take some exception to the ARG approach to getting a library. With no
intent to slight the ARG, it just by nature is going to be slow in arriving
at anything and will likely go for a much more limited approach than could
be done through some other means. Its just way too hard to get something
like this into an ISO standard or do it with any speed and rapid response to
changing demands. It would likely be far better to get something less formal
through some other mechanism - such as SIGAda. The question is what sort of
mechanism might be blessed by ARG, the vendors and the community at large as
being an acceptable alternative?1

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]
======================================================================

Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3D974E8E.5050302@acm.org...
> It appears that there will only be a common data-structures library
> supported by most vendors if the ARG receives an API proposal for one.
> That's a lot of work someone will have to do to get it into the form of
> ARM sections.
>
> If the ARG receives only one such proposal, that will by default form
> the basis of the standard library. The best thing for Ada would be for
> people to prepare such proposals. With multiple proposals we are more
> likely to get a decent standard library. Debating societies such as we
> have seen here have yet to accomplish anything useful.
>