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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f7230830b229a11 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-07 07:42:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.clear.net.nz!news.clear.net.nz.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:42:02 -0500 From: Craig Carey Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: FW: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 03:42:06 +1300 Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Customer of Mercury Telecommunications Ltd Cache-Post-Path: drone5.qsi.net.nz!unknown@tnt1-250.quicksilver.net.nz X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: drone5-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz X-Original-Trace: 8 Oct 2003 03:42:07 +1300, drone5-svc-skyt.qsi.net.nz NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.97.37.6 X-Trace: sv3-UmAihLpLBZa/tPwKBouumIilKoefOa45oM4xFfvt4ERiptpwXDcMJjPeM5GA/+qdMXHbYwpktLlt4ja!/0c9y0FxJMp+Vn6m8BrC5s1AKiNFN/TlBYSllHtl+WaCfcHXKHaPBRlpmgbe49h6ZNFRW0DfRT4C!UqDci2s= X-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz X-DMCA-Complaints-To: Complaints to abuse@clear.net.nz X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:379 Date: 2003-10-08T03:42:06+13:00 List-Id: On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:56:56 +0100, M�rio Amado Alves 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.