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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.66.101.40 with SMTP id fd8mr19954385pab.14.1431363638644; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.19.194 with SMTP id h2mr59305obe.41.1431363638604; Mon, 11 May 2015 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!m20no10329474iga.0!news-out.google.com!kd3ni14166igb.0!nntp.google.com!m20no2007086iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 10:00:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=97.123.201.26; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC NNTP-Posting-Host: 97.123.201.26 References: <47c7df1e-17c1-44cb-a455-43431f0d39cd@googlegroups.com> <85zj5wb9et.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <4b14659e-8c26-4c0a-8945-a5289740e054@googlegroups.com> <51c639dd-a48c-4130-becd-750cb23094da@googlegroups.com> <35aabdcd-6064-4999-9cdf-d143b0593a31@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Textedit and txt From: Shark8 Injection-Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 17:00:38 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193119 Date: 2015-05-11T10:00:38-07:00 List-Id: 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?