Re: Ada Component Registry proposal

[sk <noname@myob.com>]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>:
 > What about Ada80.Sockets, Ada87.Sockets, and Ada2000.Sockets?
 >
 > The differences between some of these versions, and others not
 > mentioned is slight. (For example, there were three differences
 > between MIL-STD ...

Interesting, I must look at my LRM (after I find it) to see whether I
followed MIL-STD or ANSI/MIL-STD Ada'83 :-) This also might explain a
recent problem of ARM quoting where myself and another where quoting
from the same textual section/paragraph but were using different chapter
numbers. However, I don't see this as particularly limiting.

Another reason I would prefer a short and complete name, such as Ada95
is that "CAL", "SAL", "XAL", "EACHUS" etc. don't suggest what they are
and they are acronyms or peoples personal labels rather than being
descriptive etc.

 > I'm not trying to be a stickler for accuracy here, just pointing out
 > that the Ada standard is evolving.  I'd hate to have the CAL come out
 > labelled as Ada95 (or Ada2000) just in time for the Ada 0X standard.

Yes, but the inventory would be for *now* which is for Ada95 and prior,
when sub-packages become suitable for Ada0x, then they move to the Ada0x
tree. Not picking, just do not see the difficulty.

I am not fighting for my own idea, just trying to steer away from acronyms,
personal labels, or corporate hierarchy names (GNAT.Directory_Operations, 
nothing against GNAT, but do not know how it will port to a platform not
supported by GNAT).

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
-- Merge vertically for real address
--
--     s n p @ t . o
--      k i e k c c m
-------------------------------------------------