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: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.211.136 with SMTP id nc8mr1508687pbc.6.1335407022762;
        Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 
 r9ni99028pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:23:37 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <jnabjc$vg8$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <4f97bf40$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1335407021 32264 69.95.181.76 (26 Apr 2012 02:23:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:23:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Date: 2012-04-25T21:23:37-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message 
news:4f97bf40$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> On 25.04.12 09:47, Martin wrote:
...
> My favorite change would start here:
>
> 0) Which features do you think can be dropped from Ada?

Of course, practically, we can't drop anything because of compability 
concerns. The most we can do is banish things to Annex J.

I'd probably start with:

(1) Co-extensions (and more generally, allocators for anonymous access 
types). [I'd like to get rid of all anonymous types period, but that 
probably is going to far.];

(2) Generic in-out object parameters (almost never used, hard to implement, 
probably buggy because of the first two);

(3) Interfaces (buys almost nothing over abstract types, except a huge 
amount of complication in definition and implementation);

(4) Accessibility checking - both static and dynamic (finds 1 real error for 
every hundred reported - I've only once in more than 15 years been able to 
use 'Access on an object successfully). On top of that, the rules are 
complex and need huge efforts to maintain: clause 3.10.2 is known in the ARG 
as the "heart of darkness". And on top of that, it's not ever clear that the 
Ada 2005 rules as corrected are actually implementable (we have an open AI 
on that).

                                              Randy.