Re: FW: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

[Craig Carey <research@ijs.co.nz>]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:56:56 +0100, M�rio Amado Alves
<amado.alves@netcabo.pt> wrote:

>(Marin, sorry, previously I replied to you only, by mistake.)
>
>> I suppose it would not hurt too much to make a Bounded_String
>> version. 
>> More for completeness than anything else. (It would look kind 
>> of silly 
>> to be able to do a Get_Line or Put_Line of String or Unbounded_String 
>> but not Bounded_String, right?) But I'd be curious to know if 
>> there is 
>> *anybody* out there using Bounded_String on a regular basis. 
>
>Bounded_String is useful--and actually used by people. However I don't
>agree with multiplying every string-related tool by the three string
>versions. Please do them for String only. Keep the ARM small.
>

That suggests balancing reasoning, so on balance your conclusion is
to be rejected. One grounds for that could be: "Bounded Strings is a
useful package." There may not be any principle saying that the RM has
to be small. What can be discarded (even if ignoring your hints that
your view is wrong) is the balancing. At the time of Ada 95, a rationale
was formulated and followed. If there is a rationale in words behind the
idea "keep the ARM small" then do state that for me.