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 05:15:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!freenix!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 07:23:48 -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 1066824891 71215 80.67.180.195 (22 Oct 2003 12:14:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:14:51 +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:1411 Date: 2003-10-22T07:23:48-05:00 stephane.richard@verizon.net: > the library shouldn't reflect what was used to develop it > because it will what was used to develop it because it will > follow through Ada's evolution I disagree, not with your naming disagreement since I have absolutely no vested interest one way or another, but I disagree with the idea that it shouldn't "reflect what was used to develop it". If you have libraries hanging around for Ada83, you need to be very aware that Ada83 techniques were used to develop it. Admittedly, if you are compiling from source, this would rapidly become apparent but there is a need to know which version of Ada the code was intended to work with. The naming scheme would give an immediate signal that there are potentially very dangerous 'Address clauses and UC's going on in the body which are totally uneccessary with Ada95. -- ------------------------------------------------- -- Merge vertically for real address -- -- s n p @ t . o -- k i e k c c m -------------------------------------------------