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,fce663eaf40b52f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Manifesto against Vector Date: 5 May 2004 20:42:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083814955 514 127.0.0.1 (6 May 2004 03:42:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 03:42:35 +0000 (UTC) Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:300 Date: 2004-05-05T20:42:34-07:00 List-Id: "Martin Dowie" wrote in message news:... > "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > news:bebbba07.0405042128.1a322885@posting.google.com... > > By the way, where do we stand on "with/use"? Ada needs it, and I hope > > you guys aren't fumbling the ball on that! > > Russ, > > As I pointed out to you when you first raise this: > > Discussions on comp.lang.ada count for squat. If you have a proposal, go to > http://www.ada-auth.org/, read the procedure (e.g. > http://www.ada-auth.org/ai-files/minutes/ARGprc20.PDF - there are plain text > or Word versions available too) and submit an AI Thanks for the information. > I can tell you now that I would bet a months salary (before tax!) that it > would be rejected but you're free to try. Just as I feared. They *are* fumbling the ball. > If you do submit a proposal, get your tin hat on and be prepared to bat your > corner - the ARG don't take prisoners! And that's not because they're > zealots or anything, they just _know_ the language and the _rationale_ > behind the language better than 99.9999999999999999% of anyone else. That may be so, but this particular issue is simple enough even for an ameteur like me. I know that with/use Ada.Integer_Text_IO; is cleaner and simpler than with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Inteqer_Text_IO And I also that it is a trivial matter to parse the former to produce the latter. I could do it myself in a few minutes. Nor does it break compatibility with legacy code in any way. I see absolutely no reasonable objection to "with/use" (but I have a funny feeling that I may soon be bombarded with a lot of unreasonable objections). By the way, the following is for those of you who prefer to read everything twice: That may be so, but this particular issue is simple enough even for an ameteur like me. I know that with/use Ada.Integer_Text_IO; is cleaner and simpler than with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Inteqer_Text_IO And I also that it is a trivial matter to parse the former to produce the latter. I could do it myself in a few minutes. Nor does it break compatibility with legacy code in any way. I see absolutely no reasonable objection to "with/use" (but I have a funny feeling that I may soon be bombarded with a lot of unreasonable objections). Get the message? Or should I repeat it again?