Re: Ada Annex G (was Re: question on GtkAda)

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Nasser M. Abbasi" <nma@12000.org> wrote in message 
news:iem99k$58g$1@speranza.aioe.org...
...
> It seems to me it would have been more efficient to provide an
> "offical" bindings to the most stable known math libraries
> out there, than to try to provide this in an Ada standard
> library such as the annex? May be a thich binding? But
> this is not an easy problem. Whcih libraries? which
> versions? who will make such an "official" binding, etc...

Perhaps. But Annex G was an existing Ada standard (it used to be a separate 
standard for Ada 83), and it made sense to clean up the old standard and 
fold into the language standard.

It's unlikely that a "binding" could be formally standardized, because the 
level of description would be insufficient. And experience has proven that 
libraries that aren't in the language standard are much less likely to be 
available with compliers. (The old standard that was turned into Annex G was 
not widely implemented, mostly because hardly anyone knew it existed. I sure 
didn't...)

                                       Randy.