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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,43f6bd9b498b66d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!news.tornevall.net!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: default formal parameters in generic declarations Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 12:43:04 -0600 Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server Message-ID: References: <9b3bac4d-5ae1-4a1b-a81e-9aa9ae1843e0@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1204656190 21536 69.95.181.76 (4 Mar 2008 18:43:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 18:43:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20185 Date: 2008-03-04T12:43:04-06:00 List-Id: "Eric Hughes" wrote in message news:d84f0434-bace-4b99-b10d-f4a56807eacd@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 3, 8:43 pm, "Randy Brukardt" wrote: > > It surely was considered for the most recent language update, because I > > proposed it. See AI-299. > > Thank you. That's the exact sort of reference I was hoping for. > > > The net effect is that IMHO there is no *good* reason that Ada doesn't have > > such defaults (now); they just got swept up in a tide of negativity. > > The "good", apparently, was a removal from attention and a freeing up > of mental space. That's a short-term benefit to a committee, > unfortunately, and not a long-term benefit to a community. Well, keep in mind that if a language update has too many "nice-to-have" features, the implementation costs go up and that reduces (or in the worst case, eliminates) the number of implementations available. Also, more features mean more definitional and educational complexity. So there are costs beyond just plain ease of use to consider. Looking back at the old minutes, we had a straw poll where about half of the people present thought that this feature was not important enough. That's a pretty significant number (I don't recall many other features that had that level of apathy). Another data point is that this AI is not one that I think of when asked what I wished we had been able to do with the Amendment. So even I don't view it as that critical. As such, it makes sense that it got left out in order to keep the size of the changes manageable. Randy.