RE: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?)

["Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <rleif@rleif.com>]

From: Bob Leif
To: Jeff Carter et al.

I certainly agree. I too believe that the ordering constraint on enumerated
types should be retained. Robert Dewar wrote, "well conceived proposals can
be considered as amendment AI's by the ARG right now, without waiting for a
new revision to be in view."

I believe that they ARG should create alpha and beta versions of Ada 0y
prior to finalizing the standard. This would permit a good number of us to
use and to test them. The safety critical and other specialized needs users
should have a means to guarantee that they were not included in their Ada
source. The compiler could have a switch, with the default being pure Ada
95.

I suspect that the ARGs error-rate will be sufficiently low, that any final
changes would at most be be minor. In the case of an extensible enumerated
type, the effects of possible changes in the syntax can be minimized by
creation of a subprogram (method). This subprogram would create a string
that includes all of the items in an enumerated type or an extended
enumerated type. This list of items will significantly facilitate repairs in
the unlikely event that they are needed and help with maintenance.

-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Jeffrey Carter
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 8:41 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada
revision be? (83, 95, ?)


Robert Dewar wrote:
> This is a misconception, no one could say at this stage when
> the next revision of the Ada standard might be, but in any case
> well conceived proposals can be considered as amendment AI's
> by the ARG right now, without waiting for a new revision to be
> in view. I will not comment on whether I consider this
> particular proposal to be well conceived, I will leave that
> to others.

Come, now, there are few people better qualified to make such comments
than Robert Dewar.

Nick Roberts' proposal is essentially the same as mine. I don't consider
it a big deal one way or the other. I don't agree with removing the
ordering constraint on enumerated types.

--
Jeff Carter
"English bed-wetting types."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail