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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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 10.68.227.230 with SMTP id sd6mr5365246pbc.8.1335428776823;
        Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni99963pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:25:06 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <lh3gjjdhbg01.k1bt0u2astpl$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <4f97bf40$0$6559$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <jnabjc$vg8$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-26T10:25:06+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:23:37 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "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.];

Yes. It was a yet another helpless attempt to circumvent the issue of MI
per mix-ins with co-extensions.

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

What about passing a storage pool to a generic?

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

Hold on, should it mean that you are for true MI? I cannot believe it!
(:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de