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: 103376,5b0235b23a9db0f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-01 23:28:14 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!jussieu.fr!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:26:53 -0800 Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 981098884 27624 137.194.161.2 (2 Feb 2001 07:28:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:28:04 +0000 (UTC) To: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3A7A2C91.9293E7E2@acm.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Importance: Normal Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:4847 Date: 2001-02-01T23:26:53-08:00 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