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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-19 23:05:43 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)
Date: 19 Dec 2003 23:05:43 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0312192305.20070103@posting.google.com>
References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
 <mailman.127.1071622884.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <DaudnfwlSK39VkKiRVn-sQ@comcast.com>
 <657ea3e3.0312172255.4869eae5@posting.google.com>
 <0cOdndZsZbH6W3yiRVn-gg@comcast.com> <wccvfoec77b.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <bebbba07.0312190051.5335ad9a@posting.google.com>
 <wccoeu4v1l2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1071903943 26621 127.0.0.1 (20 Dec 2003 07:05:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3612
Date: 2003-12-19T23:05:43-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<wccoeu4v1l2.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> 
> > Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<wccvfoec77b.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>...

> As usual, Russ, you way overestimate the importance of such syntactic

Perhaps, but I think many Ada experts *underestimate* it.

> sugar.  I agree with you that some such more-concise syntax would be an
> improvement, and I disagree with those who say the sky would fall if we
> allowed it.  But there are far more important changes (like allowing
> initialization of limited objects), and *every* change has some cost.

I agree. Yes, I'm sure there are more important changes to be made.

As I said in an earlier thread, I consider myself like a real estate
agent who tells a seller to clear the junk out of the front yard. No,
that's not as important as fixing the plumbing and electrical, but it
is by far the most cost-effective job the seller can do. If you want
to sell Ada, I think you would help your cause to take this
"superficial" and "cosmetic" issue seriously.