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: 103376,71dcb452eafb5045
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada enumerations
Date: 1997/12/12
Message-ID: <dewar.881950513@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297614862
References: <348EDDC9.794B@hso.link.com> <dewar.881792609@merv>
 <34908778.41C6@hso.link.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 881950735 29517 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-12-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Stanley said

<<What were the reasons for its rejection, or where can I
find the discussion that lead to its rejection?
>>

The reason for the rejection was simply that the feature seemed of 
insufficient value to be worth adding, given that its functionality
was largely duplicated by unchecked conversion. A lot of the argument
in favor of the feature came from environments where, quite arbitrarily,
unchecked conversion could not be used, and this particular argument
was rejected (if you restrict the language yourself, you have to live
with your own restrictions!) 

I don't think you will find any more. There is a matter of judgment here
sure, and the collective judgment was in favor of not providing this
feature. The decision was not controversial, and there was no substantial
objection or move to consider the decision in more detail.

End of story really, if you expected some kind of absolute objective
decision, documented with objective data, you won't find it. Yes, a
minority will feel it was the wrong decision (that is true of almost
any decision made in the language design area).