From: jpwoodruff <jpwoodruff@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BC components for indefinite types?
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 19:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2009-05-23T19:59:03-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b3b05502-f05e-4315-9782-e98998e14daf@z8g2000prd.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9064d28d-8415-4303-ab5a-ebc9ea0d4012@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
On May 22, 7:39 pm, guerrier.cacha...@gmail.com wrote:
> A little question : What in the 2005 revision has did you push to stay
> in Ada95 ?
I wasn't pushed from Ada05; instead I avoided the pull. As I'm a
hobbyist the pull on me was minuscule - I will disseminate no lasting
artifacts.
Some of my component inventory weren't Ada05 compliant, so I chose
indolent obsolescence over the joys of configuration management. Lots
of my exercises are "just like that other one, except ...". Therefore
it benefits me to leave things mostly alone.
I take Simon's point that the standard probably should displace the
bc's. Perhaps I should schedule an attempt to upgrade. Right after
the other activities with higher priority.
Regards
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-24 2:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-22 22:55 BC components for indefinite types? jpwoodruff
2009-05-23 1:39 ` guerrier.cachalot
2009-05-24 2:59 ` jpwoodruff [this message]
2009-05-24 20:33 ` sjw
2009-05-23 9:37 ` sjw
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox