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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b47b15fda2aeb0b2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada Standard
Date: 1996/09/01
Message-ID: <dewar.841590835@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 177826739
references: <50aao3$3r88@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Incidentally I think random discussion of new ideas for Ada by email
or in this newsgroup is largely wasted effort. Note that the first
step in the Ada 9X effort was to collect revision suggestions in
a very formal form, with a formal submission procedure.

As I said before, I think this is premature anyway. People do not know
Ada 95 well enough to make useful suggestions yet, so the discussion
of new features will have a very high noise-to-signal ratio, with
a lot of suggestions simply reflecting a lack of understanding of
how Ada 95 can be used to solve the problems. At least 5 years needs
to go by before there is enough perspective to understand what, if
anything, that is really important, is missing or inconvenient in the
language.