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: 103376,36a29c2860aff686
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Properties
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:49:02 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <id1l6f$2v8$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <3b84c8e7-1a51-4a7c-9646-119f1fc51478@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1291081743 3048 69.95.181.76 (30 Nov 2010 01:49:03 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 01:49:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16678
Date: 2010-11-29T19:49:02-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Shark8" <onewingedshark@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:3b84c8e7-1a51-4a7c-9646-119f1fc51478@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>I would like to submit a proposal for future Ada development; namely
> "Properties." The purpose of this thread is to: 1) present the ideas
> in general; 2) bounce ideas for the syntax off of fellow Ada users; 3)
> work on presenting ideas to others; and  4) obtain the information to
> submit the proposal.

My initial reaction is that you have a solution in search of a problem. That 
always happens when someone presents their whiz-bang new feature first 
instead of explaining in detail what the problem with current Ada is. (Don't 
worry, it's happened to all of us at some point or another.)

So, if you want this to be taken seriously, you need to explain the problem 
in detail and then show how your proposal fixes/improves the problem.

Note that the ARG in general is looking for problems that are occurring in 
real code, and much less for solutions to those problems -- we're plenty 
creative in that regard! We've occassionally talked about the need to have 
more flexibility for components (the missing "constant" components come up 
once in a while), but I think it would be helpful to have more compelling 
examples of problems with the current facilities.

                                             Randy.