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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,15267b2c375b45c2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-21 21:21:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stueberl.de!teaser.fr!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: sk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Component Registry proposal Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:26:22 -0500 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <3F92BEAA.9030004@comcast.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1066796252 48178 80.67.180.195 (22 Oct 2003 04:17:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:17:32 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020828 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1365 Date: 2003-10-21T23:26:22-05:00 "Robert I. Eachus" : > 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 -------------------------------------------------