RE: Omission in the Ada Standard

["Beard, Frank Randolph CIV" <frank.beard@navy.mil>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Kilgallen

>> Robert C. Leif writes:
>> While I was working on my latest project, the CellFuge, I was shocked
>> to learn that Jerry van Dijk's Io_Ports package that I have did not
>> compile with GNAT. I do need an up to date version. Since the Intel
>> Pentium class of processors and their clones are a very large part of
>> the software market, the possibility of port based IO should be
>> included in Ada.
>
> And what would the meaning be on some other processor for which a
> standard-compliant Ada compiler is needed ?

I guess the same as GNAT.  Over half of the GNAT source I see, that
is of interest to me, won't compile on my Aonix compiler because of
some GNAT.Some_Package reference.  I have to go in and surgically
modify the code. Portability ends up moving from the language
to the tool.  So, "my GNAT code is portable so long as GNAT has been
ported to the new platform".  This has been an issue for a while and
no one seems to be too concerned.

Granted, in some cases I can pick up that particular GNAT source easily
enough and add it to my project.  But, other times, the GNAT.Some_Package
is so entangled in the rest of GNAT that it becomes a monumental task.  

So, why is adding it to the standard that big of a concern?
Just handle it the same way as Ada.Command_Line.  If it's supported,
great.  If not, don't use it.  And if someone does try to use it,
raise an exception.  

Frank