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,cdf2d098814fcae4,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-08 17:24:11 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!213.56.195.71!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Ada Revision Process was RE: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:22:34 -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 981681849 85374 137.194.161.2 (9 Feb 2001 01:24:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:24:09 +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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 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:5036 Date: 2001-02-08T17:22:34-08:00 From: Bob Leif To: Robert Dewar et al. Your note concerns two questions: The first is the Ada 0Y process and the second is the utility of Extensible Enumerated types. I will answer them separately. Ada 0Y Process: I might first note, that I asked for the location of the documentation for Ada 95 proposed addition of extensible enumerated types. I still do believe that this was an appropriate place to start. However, after downloading what I believe to be the location suggested by Tucker Taft, I still can not find it. You are quite correct concerning the formal process. However, I believe that it makes sense to start with an informal discussion on Comp.Lang.Ada. This has three virtues: 1) Since I am not a software expert, any syntax I suggest will probably, at least, need to be refined. 2) I believe that introduction of enhancements or changes to Ada should be as democratically decided as possible. Parenthetically, I vividly remember a TriAda meeting where the audience voted not to have dual inheritance. This proved to me that Ada was certainly not controlled by the military. 3) One of the reasons for Ada's apparent lack of commercial success is that it has been technologically driven. When one posts a suggestion on Comp.Lang.Ada, the resulting response to a very limited extent constitutes a market survey or the equivalent of a focus group discussion. In order for this magnificent technology to reach the greatest number of users, there has to be some market driven activity. Often in commercial endeavors, the marketing department makes difficult or impossible demands on engineering. I have yet to read a posting from an Ada marketing department saying, if we enhanced Ada by something, the Ada market penetration would increase by some percentage. Since one of the greatest virtues of Ada is interoperability, a consensus often has to be reached before individual vendors enhance the language. I might note that ACT by creating an 'Img attribute made an excellent contribution, which I hope is included in the next revision of Ada. Please post the URL where one can find the exact procedure for proposing an enhancement to Ada. I hope my fellow readers of Comp.Lang.Ada would also post their comments concerning the Ada revision process. -----Original Message----- From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org [mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of Robert Dewar Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:38 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: RE: Extensible Enummerated types FW: When will next Ada revision be? (83, 95, ?) In article , comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote: > From: Bob Leif > To: Jeff Carter et al. <> Bob, it seems like you are writing this without first finding out what is going on right now, which might be a good idea, since this procedure has been discussed and agreed on, and is being actively used now, and is unlikely to change without some very good arguments. The current procedure is the following. For language extensions an "amendment" class AI is prepared, this is processed by the ARG into a fully formed, fully worked out, language extension proposal which is then approved by the ARG, and subsequently by WG-9. Vendors are then free to implement these extensions. It is typically likely that at least one vendor will do so, since if it is the case that no vendors see any value in implementing a feature (considering their customer needs), the proposal is unlikely to fly in the first place. The idea is that eventually any revision of Ada might include some or all of these extensions in either their unmodfied form, or perhaps a modified form (like the rest of the language at that stage, they would be subject to revision). In terms of the existing features in the language, as you know a corrigendum has already been approved that would of course be the starting point for a new standard. In the case of this particular proposal (on which I have not commented simply because I have seen no good argument for its utility (it would be nice to see a convincing example of an application that would benefit from this proposal, rather than simply language proposals), the proper approach is to convince at least one member of the ARG to prepare an AI, or alternatively prepare a complete AI, and submit it for consideration. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/