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: 2003-10-22 05:04:44 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!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: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 07:12:29 -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 1066824216 70700 80.67.180.195 (22 Oct 2003 12:03:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:03:36 +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:1408 Date: 2003-10-22T07:12:29-05:00 nolongersafeto@userealemailsniff.com: > I think this is not the right path. When Ada 2020 comes out and > we want to add a new subprogram to Ada05.Directory_Operations > does that mean we now have an Ada20.Directory_Operations that looks > the same but with the new procedure or do we add to it. No matter > what the answer is I don't think I like it. The Ada83, Ada95, Ada0x scheme was intended to imply a "works-with" relationship rather than a versioning relationship. For example, there is a good chance that an Ada83.Directory_Operations would resort to the subprogram'address methods for binding whereas the Ada95.Directory_Operations would take advantage of the Interfaces.* hierarchy and also possibly the subprogram'access capability of Ada'95. I think the issue you describe tends to be a versioning issue rather than a library-hierarchy issue and would occurr whether the root name for the library was "root", "Ada95" or "CAL". -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m -------------------------------------------------