The Ada 2005 name (was: Re: Bug in GNAT GPL 2006?)

[dirk@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Dirk Craeynest)]

Bill Findlay wrote:
>can anyone more knowledgeable about Ada 200[57] confirm this?

I notice that once in a while there appears to be some confusion
about how to refer to the latest Ada language definition.

FYI, the internationally accepted recommendation is to use the name
"Ada 2005".

Obviously the official name of the language is Ada, but when referring
to previous "instances" of the standard, the Ada community has been
using Ada 83 and Ada 95 as informal or "vernacular" names.

In an attempt to avoid possible confusion about how to refer to the
amended Ada language definition, the ISO working group on Ada (WG9)
discussed this issue during its June 2005 meeting in York.  Various
proposals were made and many arguments were presented.  For those of
you who are interested: a summary of the discussion is available in
the minutes of that meeting [1].

Finally, the following recommendation was accepted *unanimously*:

    ``Recognizing that ISO's publication date will differ from the
    date of technical completion in 2005, and recognizing that the
    term "Ada 2005" is widely used in the community, WG9 recommends
    that an appropriate vernacular designation for the amended
    language should be "Ada 2005".'' [2]

That's why in most literature, marketing material, communications, etc,
we refer to the amended language as "Ada 2005".

This includes e.g. the ARA announcement "Ada 2005 on Track for Formal
ISO Approval" [3], Ada-Europe's press release "Technical Work on Ada
2005 Standard Completed" [4], and the title "Ada 2005 Reference Manual.
Language and Standard Libraries" of the book recently published by
Springer in its LNCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science) series [5].

[1] <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg9/n451.htm#VernName>
[2] <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg9/n451.htm#r5>
[3] <http://www.adaic.com/news/iso-Ada05.html>
[4] <http://www.ada-europe.org/Ada_2005_Press_Release.pdf>
[5] <http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=5-102-22-173712407-0>

We may all have our personal preferences about how to name things,
but in the interest of global understandability and to avoid creating
confusion, may I suggest we all abide to that recommendation of the
ISO working group on Ada?

So, when referring to the language in general, use "Ada", and when
referring to the recently amended language definition in particular,
use "Ada 2005".

I hope this helps.

Dirk Craeynest
Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.be
ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9, Head of Delegation, Belgium