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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nuzba.szn.dk!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: Seeking for papers about tagged types vs access to subprograms
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 20:14:28 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <km9khl$fhp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <op.wv8jh1c1ule2fv@cardamome> <op.wwbvqzkeule2fv@cardamome>
 <op.wwnp2zkrule2fv@cardamome> <u3jaslg5kca7.1gk5ds3d4sx2y$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwnsmtteule2fv@cardamome> <17ceq51ydy3s0.s94miqqzbg5w.dlg@40tude.net>
 <op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1367889269 15929 69.95.181.76 (7 May 2013 01:14:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 01:14:29 +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
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15391
Date: 2013-05-06T20:14:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.wwny5jerule2fv@cardamome...
Le Mon, 06 May 2013 14:11:32 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> Yes it does. That was a flaw of Ada 95 design. I guess it was the maximum
>> of what Tucker Taft could press through fierce opposition.
>
>Fierce opposition from who? For what reasons? What did Tucker initially 
>wanted?

WG 9 thought that Ada 95 had grown way too large and was too much of a 
change. That led to the infamous "scope reduction", where many important 
things were thrown out (including finalization). The Ada 9x team snuck 
several of the ideas back in toward the end (including finalization, 
renaming of library units, and more), and some of the other ideas have 
resurfaced in more recent versions of Ada.

I'm of the opinion that WG 9 was right, in that the market could only handle 
so much change to Ada. We lost many compiler vendors at that time as it was, 
we might have ended up with none if the language had been too ambitious. 
OTOH, the cutting probably went a bit too far.

                                     Randy.