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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7d533acec91ae16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95
Date: 1999/04/29
Message-ID: <m3vhegrqgd.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 472154288
References: <7g2qu4$ca4$1@usenet.rational.com>
 <7g3b5g$p92$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g4ae3$hjh2@ftp.kvaerner.com>
 <7g4gjk$luq@drn.newsguy.com> <7g4n1q$vag$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <wccg15khi6o.fsf@world.std.com> <7g7hts$h39$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 21:33:56 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com> writes:

> For an example where JDI's vote did count more than anyone
> else's and probably a good thing too, consider the issue
> of derived types, the vote was N-1 to get rid of them in
> Ada 83, but the 1 was JDI, so they stayed :-)


Funny you should characterize the inclusion of derived types as "a good
thing."  Without them, Ada83 would have been simpler (yes?).  

Derived types are not an aspect of the language understood by most
working Ada(83) programmers anyway.  (Although that's probably less
true today, now that derivation is the mechanism for type extension.)

So I'm curious: why do you think it's better that derived types were
included in the language?