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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f1a4cf648f2724ee X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-28 21:43:14 PST From: Dale Stanbrough Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ARG asks Ada Community for API Proposals. Organization: RMIT References: <3CEDA711.5040303@telepath.com> <3CEED532.2090701@telepath.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:39:01 +1000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: dale2.cs.rmit.edu.au X-Trace: itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au 1022647251 dale2.cs.rmit.edu.au (29 May 2002 14:40:51 +1000) Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newshub1.rdc1.nsw.optushome.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!vrn.edu.au!131.170.8.40.MISMATCH!itsawnews.its.rmit.edu.au!dale Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24904 Date: 2002-05-29T14:39:01+10:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > Not a bad idea, but a granularity of 10 years is not going to make Ada very > reactive to changing needs. I'd imagine an update cycle of 1 year being > about as long as it ought to go. Also, you'd want to consider that some > sections of the library might be highly stable while other sections might go > through more revisions/extensions. Would it be better to maintain them all > as separate things rather than house them all under an "Ada03" or "Ada04" > root? It might be more conducive to maintaining multiple versions/levels of > libraries with substantially different capabilities. The idea was to base the naming convention based on the version of the language required to run the software. For example you could not use the requeue facility under Ada83, so it would have to be placed under an Ada95 package hierachy (whereas software that didn't could be placed under an Ada83 package hierachy :-). This is not denying the need to be able to produce many revisions of the same software. For example you may have Ada95.Containers.Protected_Lists which could require the requeue feature of Ada95 going through multiple revisions. the Ada95 name only says "you need to compile this with an Ada95 compiler". If Ada05 introduces the reserved word "discombobulate", then clearly none of the packages under Ada95 hierachy could use it. The benefit of this is that replacement packages could be created relying on new language features, and all it would take for a client to use the new library would be to change "Ada95" to "Ada05". Dale