Re: Textedit and txt

[Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>]

On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 5:35:52 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Laurent" wrote in message 
> news:35aabdcd-6064-4999-9cdf-d143b0593a31 at googlegroups.com...
> > On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 at 11:23:36 PM UTC+2, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> ...
> >>I'd prefer a completely different design for both of these packages, so we 
> >>could add some
> >>mechanism to allow direct conversions, but that's likely too radical.)
> >
> > Why would that be too radical?
> 
> Well, either we'd modify the existing packages (which would be very 
> incompatible, so it would never happen), or we'd have to add new ones. In 
> the later case, there would be a lot of opposition because we'd be 
> duplicating functionality. If it happened, it would happen because of adding 
> something like Root_String'Class to the language; then we'd need packages on 
> that type and those would necessarily be new. But I'm not expecting much 
> happening on that.
> 
>                                    Randy.


Question: Why couldn't we define new string packages and allow the old ones to be placed in [e.g.] Ada.Annex_J.[old-package] with perhaps allowing compilers to rename the Annex_J children within the library as the Strings-packages?

This way we could allow the old stuff to compile with the proper "use deprecated"-flag but be free to introduce better designs in the core/standard library?