Newbie: display control

Newbie: display control

[svaa]

Hello:
  Is there any library to control display cursor etc, that has become
an standard "de facto" in Ada 95?.

I'm a newbie in Ada, but I think it's strange that Ada RM, that covers
a lot of stuff, doesn't have a screen/cursor/keyboard standard spec.
the user interface in Ada 95 is sad (well, I would say missing).

I know there are a lot of terminals, and depends a lot upon hardware.
But the first Ada was born in 1983, not in 1960, terminals were then
an important part of computers world. I don't mean Ada should have a
full GUI, but at least a "clear screen", and "set cursor position"
procedure. Or was the main goal of Ada embedded systems?

Re: Newbie: display control

[tmoran]

> Is there any library to control display cursor etc, that has become
Professor Feldman's ANSI terminal code package has been pretty widely
used, I believe, see package Screen in
http://www.adaic.com/docs/95style/ascii/sec_11.txt
What system are you running on that still handles ANSI terminal codes?

Re: Newbie: display control

[David C. Hoos, Sr.]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "svaa" <svaa@ciberpiula.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
To: <comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Sent: March 01, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: Newbie: display control


> Hello:
>   Is there any library to control display cursor etc, that has become
> an standard "de facto" in Ada 95?.
> 
> I'm a newbie in Ada, but I think it's strange that Ada RM, that covers
> a lot of stuff, doesn't have a screen/cursor/keyboard standard spec.
> the user interface in Ada 95 is sad (well, I would say missing).
> 
> I know there are a lot of terminals, and depends a lot upon hardware.
> But the first Ada was born in 1983, not in 1960, terminals were then
> an important part of computers world. I don't mean Ada should have a
> full GUI, but at least a "clear screen", and "set cursor position"
> procedure. Or was the main goal of Ada embedded systems?
Without OS support for a particular terminal discipline, there's not
much that a language can do.

For example, if you're running a version of Windows that works with
ANSI,SYS (i.e., win9x) you can use Mike Feldman's package, as
Tom Moran suggested.  It also will work with *nix systems with
appropriate terminal configuration.

What other language (and under what OS) provides the type of operations
you deem are missing from Ada?   

> _______________________________________________
> comp.lang.ada mailing list
> comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> http://ada.eu.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada
> 
> 

Re: Newbie: display control

[Gautier]

svaa:

>   Is there any library to control display cursor etc, that has become
> an standard "de facto" in Ada 95?.
> 
> I'm a newbie in Ada, but I think it's strange that Ada RM, that covers
> a lot of stuff, doesn't have a screen/cursor/keyboard standard spec.
> the user interface in Ada 95 is sad (well, I would say missing).
> 
> I know there are a lot of terminals, and depends a lot upon hardware.
> But the first Ada was born in 1983, not in 1960, terminals were then
> an important part of computers world. I don't mean Ada should have a
> full GUI, but at least a "clear screen", and "set cursor position"
> procedure. Or was the main goal of Ada embedded systems?

The designers of Ada have always been very careful not hooking the
language into a specific system (for Ada83 even too minimalist, e.g.
the missing math libraries). You terminal issue is a good example
of the pertinence of this carefulness: in 1983 the terminals had
perhaps the "set cursor position" feature, but a normal command
line window in 2003 provide basically not more functionality than
what you find in Ada.Text_IO.
________________________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm

NB: For a direct answer, e-mail address on the Web site!

Re: Newbie: display control

[Frank J. Lhota]

> You terminal issue is a good example
> of the pertinence of this carefulness: in 1983 the terminals had
> perhaps the "set cursor position" feature, but a normal command
> line window in 2003 provide basically not more functionality than
> what you find in Ada.Text_IO.

The problem is basically Microsoft. Since their earliest days, they have
resisted proper interpretation of the ANSI escape sequences. Under MS-DOS,
they were available only if the ANSI.SYS driver was installed. That was
somewhat forgivable back then, given how difficult managing memory on first
generation PC's were. What is more difficult to understand is why there is
no ANSI support for the CLI under Win32, where memory is no longer the issue
it used to be.

Re: Newbie: display control

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <17cd177c.0303020211.7097abb@posting.google.com>, gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com (Gautier) writes:

> The designers of Ada have always been very careful not hooking the
> language into a specific system (for Ada83 even too minimalist, e.g.
> the missing math libraries). You terminal issue is a good example
> of the pertinence of this carefulness: in 1983 the terminals had
> perhaps the "set cursor position" feature, but a normal command
> line window in 2003 provide basically not more functionality than
> what you find in Ada.Text_IO.

That certainly depends on what you mean by "normal".  When I must use
a machine like Microsoft Windows* or Macintosh that does not come with
a terminal emulator, I buy a terminal emulator product for it.

On VMS workstations, a terminal emulator comes as part of the DECwindows
Motif software.

"Command line window", I presume describes Microsoft systems.  Doesn't
Unix do better ?

===
*Microsoft Windows comes with a terminal emulator that cannot even
 properly display a minimal Notes screen, so that does not count.

Re: Newbie: display control

[Frank J. Lhota]

> "Command line window", I presume describes Microsoft systems.  Doesn't
> Unix do better ?

Unix and VMS both support ANSI escape sequences. Win32 does not, but there
are API calls for doing many of the same things.

Re: Newbie: display control

[Aurele Vitali]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.FrankLho@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<b3t46r$mfe$1@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > "Command line window", I presume describes Microsoft systems.  Doesn't
> > Unix do better ?
> 
> Unix and VMS both support ANSI escape sequences. Win32 does not, but there
> are API calls for doing many of the same things.

If working on Win32, you can use the following API functions to
control your console cursor position (works well with the standard Ada
Text_IO package):

1) Wincon.SetConsoleCursorPosition ==> Sets the cursor position (Col,
Row)
2) Wincon.SetConsoleTextAttribute ==> Set the text color (including
background)
3) Wincon.SetConsoleCursorInfo ==> Changes the corsor shape.

You can also check out some of the other Win32 API function in the
Win32Ada Wincon package for more functionality.

Re: Newbie: display control

[Stephen Leake]

svaa@ciberpiula.net (svaa) writes:

> Hello:
>   Is there any library to control display cursor etc, that has become
> an standard "de facto" in Ada 95?.

Look on adapower.com; there are packages that control cursors in text
displays.

> I'm a newbie in Ada, but I think it's strange that Ada RM, that
> covers a lot of stuff, doesn't have a screen/cursor/keyboard
> standard spec. the user interface in Ada 95 is sad (well, I would
> say missing).

Yes, it is missing. That's because there is no "international standard
user interface device". Ada is an international standard, so it has to
be very careful about specifying things that might not be.

> I know there are a lot of terminals, and depends a lot upon
> hardware. But the first Ada was born in 1983, not in 1960, terminals
> were then an important part of computers world. I don't mean Ada
> should have a full GUI, but at least a "clear screen", and "set
> cursor position" procedure. 

Is there an international standard for these operations?

> Or was the main goal of Ada embedded systems?

One of the main goals.


At the same time, the "normal" user interface these days is graphical
(bitmapped), not command-line or character screens. On adapower.com,
you will also find severl non-standard libraries to handle graphical
displays.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Newbie: display control

[John R. Strohm]

Ada was intended specifically for embedded systems.

COBOL was intended specifically for automatic data processing systems, and
it has had great success in that job.

"Stephen Leake" <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:u1y1ogq71.fsf@nasa.gov...
> svaa@ciberpiula.net (svaa) writes:
>
> > Hello:
> >   Is there any library to control display cursor etc, that has become
> > an standard "de facto" in Ada 95?.
>
> Look on adapower.com; there are packages that control cursors in text
> displays.
>
> > I'm a newbie in Ada, but I think it's strange that Ada RM, that
> > covers a lot of stuff, doesn't have a screen/cursor/keyboard
> > standard spec. the user interface in Ada 95 is sad (well, I would
> > say missing).
>
> Yes, it is missing. That's because there is no "international standard
> user interface device". Ada is an international standard, so it has to
> be very careful about specifying things that might not be.
>
> > I know there are a lot of terminals, and depends a lot upon
> > hardware. But the first Ada was born in 1983, not in 1960, terminals
> > were then an important part of computers world. I don't mean Ada
> > should have a full GUI, but at least a "clear screen", and "set
> > cursor position" procedure.
>
> Is there an international standard for these operations?
>
> > Or was the main goal of Ada embedded systems?
>
> One of the main goals.
>
>
> At the same time, the "normal" user interface these days is graphical
> (bitmapped), not command-line or character screens. On adapower.com,
> you will also find severl non-standard libraries to handle graphical
> displays.
>
> --
> -- Stephe

Re: Newbie: display control

[Gautier]

["normal" command line window in 2003]

Larry Kilgallen:

> That certainly depends on what you mean by "normal".  When I must use
> a machine like Microsoft Windows* or Macintosh that does not come with
> a terminal emulator, I buy a terminal emulator product for it.
> 
> On VMS workstations, a terminal emulator comes as part of the DECwindows
> Motif software.
> 
> "Command line window", I presume describes Microsoft systems.  Doesn't
> Unix do better ?

And VMS even better!
Well, a command line window (a representation of standard_output where
you can buffer thousands of lines) is no terminal emulator (a rectangle
text area). If you want a terminal emulator on today's graphics systems,
of course you can find one. The NT/2K/XP command line window turns into
a DOS screen without problem and I'm using Volkov Commander or
other DOS programs with pleasure. There all Ada bindings you want to
terminals (and emulators).

My point is that fortunately the Ada standard did *not* get trapped into
this (even, any ?) time-limited and system-dependent technology.
________________________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm

NB: For a direct answer, e-mail address on the Web site!

Re: Newbie: display control

[Frank J. Lhota]

Yes, Ada 95 does not have a standard for moving a cursor in a terminal
window, or for clearing such a window, or any of the other ANSI based stuff
you talk about. These features, however, are also missing from the standards
for C++, Java, C#, etc.

Re: Newbie: display control

[Stephen Leake]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:

> Yes, Ada 95 does not have a standard for moving a cursor in a terminal
> window, or for clearing such a window, or any of the other ANSI based stuff
> you talk about. 

So there is an ANSI standard for terminals. It might make sense to
propose an Ada appendix that implements the ANSI terminal controls.

I would probably never use such a thing.

> These features, however, are also missing from the standards for
> C++, Java, C#, etc.

Wow! At last a feature Ada and these other languages have in common :).

-- 
-- Stephe

Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Peter Hermann]

Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote:
> "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:
>> Yes, Ada 95 does not have a standard for moving a cursor in a terminal
>> window, or for clearing such a window, or any of the other ANSI based stuff
>> you talk about. 
> So there is an ANSI standard for terminals. It might make sense to
> propose an Ada appendix that implements the ANSI terminal controls.

yes. this makes sense.
the usefulness is similar to e.g. ada.command_line
for Unix or DOS shells, screens etc. IMHO.
Is it somehow doable, Mike Feldman et.al.?

-- 
--Peter Hermann(49)0711-685-3611 fax3758 ica2ph@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de
--Pfaffenwaldring 27 Raum 114, D-70569 Stuttgart Uni Computeranwendungen
--http://www.csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de/homes/ph/
--Team Ada: "C'mon people let the world begin" (Paul McCartney)

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Preben Randhol]

Peter Hermann wrote:
> Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote:
>> "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:
>>> Yes, Ada 95 does not have a standard for moving a cursor in a terminal
>>> window, or for clearing such a window, or any of the other ANSI based stuff
>>> you talk about. 
>> So there is an ANSI standard for terminals. It might make sense to
>> propose an Ada appendix that implements the ANSI terminal controls.
> 
> yes. this makes sense.
> the usefulness is similar to e.g. ada.command_line
> for Unix or DOS shells, screens etc. IMHO.
> Is it somehow doable, Mike Feldman et.al.?

It makes absolutly no sense to put it in the standard IMHO. 

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Peter Hermann]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:
> It makes absolutly no sense to put it in the standard IMHO. 

where else?

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Preben Randhol]

Peter Hermann wrote:
> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:
>> It makes absolutly no sense to put it in the standard IMHO. 
> 
> where else?

As a external library. I don't see the need for it. I mean next will be
that we should have some sort of GUI standard in the Ada standard.

-- 
 ()   Join the worldwide campaign to protect fundamental human rights.
'||}
{||'                                           http://www.amnesty.org/

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Peter Hermann]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:
> As a external library.

bravo: however a standardized one.

> I don't see the need for it.

disagree.
(reason below)

> I mean next will be
> that we should have some sort of GUI standard in the Ada standard.

me too. there is a desparate need, indeed.
However, we should not destroy bridges behind us.
A conventional terminal application in its own right will be used
in decades to come.

I even had the case to resort to an emergency mode of a program
in case of GUI failure, i.e. when the graphical surroundings
break, the program continues working in degraded mode.

Peter Hermann

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[sk]

Hi,

<randhol+news@pvv.org> :
 > As a external library. I don't see the need for it. I mean next
 > will be that we should have some sort of GUI standard in the
 > Ada standard.

In case anybody is starting a voting process on this, I am in the
<randhol+news@pvv.org> group of hoping that specific platform needs
are NOT incorporated into any new language standards.

Let the market decide on useful *external* libraries, but do not
burden the language itself with items possibly subject to fashion
or politics.

Eg, Sockets : Windows has an API for sockets, the rest of the world
has another. I would not like for Ada, a few years from now, tied
to the obsolete socket API when the politics gets sorted out and
one API is accepted by all. Also especially since the abstract concept
of "sockets" might have changed altogther and be called "connection" or
"channel" or something.



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

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Stephen Leake]

sk <noname@myob.com> writes:

> Let the market decide on useful *external* libraries, but do not
> burden the language itself with items possibly subject to fashion
> or politics.

I agree. 

However, the ANSI standard for terminals has been around for a long
time, and still has some use. Why not put it in the Ada standard?

I have never used many of the appendices in Ada; that doesn't mean
they should not be there.

A compiler vendor might chime in that no customer of theirs has ever
requested this feature; that would be more meaningful than individual
posters on comp.lang.ada saying "i've never needed this". Several
compiler vendors saying that would be even more meaningful. Hmm. I
guess that's the "market" you talk about above; so I guess I agree
with you again :)

> Eg, Sockets : Windows has an API for sockets, the rest of the world
> has another. I would not like for Ada, a few years from now, tied to
> the obsolete socket API when the politics gets sorted out and one
> API is accepted by all. Also especially since the abstract concept
> of "sockets" might have changed altogther and be called "connection"
> or "channel" or something.

You do have to pick a standard sometime; there will always be a
"better" way "just around the corner". The trick is to pick the right
time.

For sockets, it seems that GNAT.Sockets (also AdaSockets? I have not
actually used either) works well on both Unix and Windows, so that
seems a reasonable candidate for an Ada standard.

-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <uu1ehpv1s.fsf@nasa.gov>, Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> writes:

> However, the ANSI standard for terminals has been around for a long
> time, and still has some use. Why not put it in the Ada standard?

Because the Ada standard should be for things that require support from
the compiler vendor.

There should be a body of widely used libraries that can be augmented on
a more frequent basis than the cycle for the language standard, but we
will never get there so long as people insist on shoving everything into
the language standard.

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Frode Tennebø]

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 14:40 Preben Randhol wrote:
> It makes absolutly no sense to put it in the standard IMHO.

Why?

 -Frode
-- 
^ Frode Tenneb� | email: frode@tennebo.com | Frode@IRC ^
|  with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;  |

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Frode Tennebø]

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 14:40 Preben Randhol wrote:
> It makes absolutly no sense to put it in the standard IMHO.

Why not?

 -Frode
-- 
^ Frode Tenneb� | email: frode@tennebo.com | Frode@IRC ^
|  with Standard.Disclaimer; use Standard.Disclaimer;  |

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Marin David Condic]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnb6c38v.4h4.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> As a external library. I don't see the need for it. I mean next will be
> that we should have some sort of GUI standard in the Ada standard.
>
I agree that things like this should not be in the standard. It takes too
long to change the standard and libraries are too difficult for which to
build a verification suite. IMHO, the answer would be for the Powers That Be
(whoever is controlling the standard now plus some larger industrial users)
to establish a committee to build and maintain a library of "Conventional
Ada" utilities. Start with containers and move on to more specialized areas
like math packages, terminal I/O packages, GUIs, etc. If you had at least
*some* of the compiler vendors on board and some minimal amount of funding,
Ada could end up with some really large and useful libraries of code that
would offer leverage to developers and could react quickly to perceived
language needs.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Marin David Condic]

Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:fTNRJIatrAeV@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>
> Because the Ada standard should be for things that require support from
> the compiler vendor.
>
> There should be a body of widely used libraries that can be augmented on
> a more frequent basis than the cycle for the language standard, but we
> will never get there so long as people insist on shoving everything into
> the language standard.

Absolutely. If we had a committee that built and maintained a library of
utility code as a "Reference Implementation" it could be packaged with the
compilers but provided in an unsupported mode. (Tell the customers to e-mail
the committee) To be successful though, I believe you have to have the
compiler vendors (and others, of course) driving the effort.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Stephen Leake]

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:

> Absolutely. If we had a committee that built and maintained a library of
> utility code as a "Reference Implementation" it could be packaged with the
> compilers but provided in an unsupported mode. 

SIGAda is trying to start something like that (see
http://www.sigada.org/wg/apiwg/). Maybe it will succeed.


-- 
-- Stephe

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[sk]

Hi,

Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov :
 > ... ANSI standard ...

I was more panicing over the thought that the language
be bound to some possibly transient fashion and hadn't
stopped to consider some never dying, ubiquitous things
like the ANSI terminal standard.

However, I tend towards the <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> comment

 > Because the Ada standard should be for things that require
 > support from the compiler vendor.

and subsequent comments on the response cycle for a set of
libraries.

With that thought, how about an official but very flexible
and distinctly separate package hierarchy ?

(.. and I am sure it has been discussed before or there are
comments as part of the Ada200y process, sorry for lack of
opportunity to fully investigate. Also please note that I
am not familiar with any of the ongoing Ada library projects
or the "C++" standard library so, again, sorry if this is
a rehash of other discussions or duplication of ideas so
RTFM me, with URL, if appropriate).

Standard
     Ada.xxx
     Interfaces.xxx
     System.xxx

     Libraries.xxx

"Libraries" just a graft point, nothing significant about
the name. "Libraries" would, by agreement, have some invarient
subtrees. Perhaps two levels of abstract/conceptual packages
before specific solutions are grafted into the tree ?

Libraries.Vendor (invarient, children as needed)
     .Gnat.
         .Os_Lib;
     ...
     .RRSoftware
         .Claw
     ...

Libraries.Host (invariant, children as needed)
     .Linux
     .Windows
         .Win32Ada

Libraries.Host_Interfaces.
     .Console.
         .ANSI_Terminal
             <Perhaps the M.Feldman terminal package >
         .VT100_Terminal
         ...
     .Graphical
         .Win32Ada renames Libraries.Host.Windows.Win32Ada
         .GtkAda
         ...
     .File_System
         ...
     .Network
         .Transport
             .Sockets
             ...
         .Protocols
             .Smtp
             .Http
             ...
     .etc

Libraries.Objects_And_Methods
      .Containers
          . <The current Container library project perhaps>

      .Strings
          <Just "Ada.Strings.*" as an example of the purpose
           for "Libraries.Objects_And_Methods">

Libraries.Standardized_Interfaces
      .Posix
      .RFCs

etc

There are a lot of crossovers, but Ada has the "renames"
mechanism which could associate 
"Libraries.Vendor.Gnat.Directory_Operations" for example,
with "Libraries.Host_Interfaces.File_System.Directories"

This needs a lot more thought and work (rearrangment, better
nameing, interdependencies, circularity, management burden etc),
however, it could provide a more cohesive framework into which
APIs would fit without burdening the core language or its "Ada.*"
package hierarchy.

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

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Marin David Condic]

Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:usmu0z2zr.fsf@nasa.gov...
>
> SIGAda is trying to start something like that (see
> http://www.sigada.org/wg/apiwg/). Maybe it will succeed.
>
We can always hope. Do you know if there is any vendor participation?

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "Going cold turkey isn't as delicious as it sounds."
        -- H. Simpson
======================================================================

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote:

>As a external library. I don't see the need for it. I mean next will be
>that we should have some sort of GUI standard in the Ada standard.

Let me try to answer this from the ARG standpoint, plus some history. 
Way, way, back in the Mil-Std 1815 (Ada 80) days, I/O was an integral 
part of the language.  By ANSI/Mil-Std 1815A (Ada 83) I/O required no 
special features within the language, and there was a set of standard 
packages, Direct_IO, Sequential_IO, Text_IO, and Low_Level_IO, that were 
required by the standard.

In ANSI/ISO 8652 (Ada 95) these packages were moved into Annex A, 
predefined language environment, along with other old language features 
and a few new ones.  In addition several specialized needs annexes were 
added for things that were only of interest to small segments of the Ada 
population.  The idea was that compilers need not implement all of the 
specialized needs annexes.  In practice, the major front ends, including 
GNAT have tended to implement all of the annexes, it really isn't all 
that hard.  (All you need is someone who can read and understand each 
annex. ;-)

But the annexes in my mind have been a success, because the design of 
the annexes forced us to really work hard on limiting any low-level 
extensions required to implement an annex. For example, the Information 
Systems Annex requires a lot of compiler independent software which need 
only be written once.  (Ben Brosgal, Dave Emery, and I wrote a prototype 
of those operations under contract to the AJPO, and the source code was 
made public domain.) It also requires supporting a decimal type with at 
least eighteen decimal digits, and that's about it.

Also the there are some dependencies between special needs annexes, but 
with a structure that makes sense.  (For example, it makes no sense to 
implement the Real-Time Systems annex without the Systems Programming Annex.

But when Ada 9X was in development we spent a lot of effort deciding 
what should and should not be added to the standard.  The NRG had done a 
lot of work over a decade developing math packages.  In 1982, the 
consensus was that adding a bad numerics library to the standard would 
be a mistake, and we couldn't delay the Ada standard until they were 
ready.  By the early nineties they were ready, consistant with the IEEE 
work, and there was little argument that they should not be added. 
Similarly, for political reasons, support for other character sets was a 
requirement.

But even though we put a significant amount of effort into developing an 
SQL interface, the consensus was that it wasn't something that belonged 
in the standard.  (And in my opinion a good thing too.  There were three 
proposals each with its strengths and weaknesses, and I have never 
really used any of them for more than a two or three page program. 
However there are now some very nice database bindings that don't 
require a blinding headache--and that were not available in time for Ada 
95.  If someone were to take the GNADE work: 
http://gnade.sourceforge.net/doc/gnade.html and propose all or part of 
it as part of the new standard, go ahead.  Personally, I find the thin 
ODBC binding easy enough to use, but I think that a thinker binding 
would be more appropriate for adding to the standard.

So what will be added to Ada 0Y?  The only real consensus at this point 
is that there are some container libraries that should be considered. 
Check the Ada Issues database http://www.ada-auth.org/~acats/ais.html 
for details.

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> However there are now some very nice database bindings that don't
> require a blinding headache--and that were not available in time for
> Ada 95.  If someone were to take the GNADE work:
> http://gnade.sourceforge.net/doc/gnade.html and propose all or part of
> it as part of the new standard, go ahead.  Personally, I find the thin
> ODBC binding easy enough to use, but I think that a thinker binding
> would be more appropriate for adding to the standard.

Wouldn't mind this :-)

> So what will be added to Ada 0Y?  The only real consensus at this
> point is that there are some container libraries that should be
> considered.  Check the Ada Issues database
> http://www.ada-auth.org/~acats/ais.html for details.

This would at least be very nice to have.

What about Unicode? Is Wide_String/Character sufficient for further
needs?

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Randy Brukardt]

Preben Randhol wrote in message ...
>What about Unicode? Is Wide_String/Character sufficient for further
>needs?


Wide_Wide_Character and associated operations are also under
consideration. But note that there are NOT libraries, which was the
topic of discussion.

        Randy Brukardt

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Preben Randhol]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> 
> Wide_Wide_Character and associated operations are also under
> consideration. But note that there are NOT libraries, which was the
> topic of discussion.

No, I was just searching through the topics and I could find something
on it, but apparently I wasn't using the correct search words :-)

No I'll check the proposals for the Calendar package. :-)

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------- http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
                 �For me, Ada95 puts back the joy in programming.�

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> No I'll check the proposals for the Calendar package. :-)

Now I'll ...
-- 
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Randy Brukardt]

Preben Randhol wrote in message ...
>Randy Brukardt wrote:
>>
>> Wide_Wide_Character and associated operations are also under
>> consideration. But note that there are NOT libraries, which was the
>> topic of discussion.
>
>No, I was just searching through the topics and I could find something
>on it, but apparently I wasn't using the correct search words :-)


Wide_Wide_Character is in AI-285. (BTW, the AdaIC search engine doesn't
currently index the AIs, because they're inside of the version control
system, which makes them invisible to the indexer. We'll figure out a
fix soon.)

         Randy.

Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Preben Randhol]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Wide_Wide_Character is in AI-285. (BTW, the AdaIC search engine doesn't
> currently index the AIs, because they're inside of the version control
> system, which makes them invisible to the indexer. We'll figure out a
> fix soon.)

I see. I downloaded the files so I'll have a look at it.

Preben