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: 1996/09/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 179273320 references: <322D6D79.7317@ehs.ericsson.se> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: iJon Anthony asks "I don't think I could over emphasize my strong agreement with this! What is the story on actually getting this adopted? " (talking about a solution to the circularity problem) I don't see any chance of officially (i.e. at the ISO level) adopting a modification to the ISO standard any time soon (say any time in the next few years). So what we are looking at here is more like an informal agreement to provide a non-standard extension. This can be done either completely informally, or perhaps the ACE can be stretched a little to encompass the idea of semi-recognized non-standard extensions. But first, we need to agre on a technical approach (I note that Tuck has changed his mind on this since we last discussed it). Actually I prefer Tuck's previous suggestion of "with type", because it makes it more honestly clear that this is indeed an extension, than trying to somehow fit it into the pragma semantics, but I think we need to discuss that. Perhaps the next ARG meeting can find a little time to discuss it.