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: 1996/09/04
Message-ID: <dewar.841840017@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178429603
references: <50aao3$3r88@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> <dewar.841590835@schonberg>
 <322B5BB0.422E@joy.ericsson.se>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


By the way, I have no objection to people discussing languge features in
free ranging form, and as you notice, I am happy to participate in such
discussions. My point was simply that suggestions of trying to formalize
such discussions into a project for the next standard are (a) premature
and (b) not appropriate anyway, since language design needs to be done
in a more studied and formal way thanb is possible on an unmoderated
newsgroup.

Incidentally, anyone is free to follow the more formal discussions of
the current standard in the appropriate forum, and to submit formal
comments (see RM for correct email address for formal comments).