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,CP1252 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c62c9a290ae8e9ab,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-13 18:59:19 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!opentransit.net!jussieu.fr!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: [Ada-Comment] Extensible Enumerated Types Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:55:01 -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="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 982119384 78172 137.194.161.2 (14 Feb 2001 02:56:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Ada-Comment List" , "Comp. Lang. Ada" To: "Pascal Leroy" 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 In-Reply-To: <002301c0960d$23ecb2f0$01a2a8c0@carpaccio> 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:5247 Date: 2001-02-13T18:55:01-08:00 From: Bob Leif To: Pascal Leroy et al. I have taken the liberty of cross-posting my reply to Comp.Lang.Ada, which is where the previous discussion occurred. You wrote, "I encourage you to write a detailed proposal on how this would be integrated with the rest of the language, and how it could be implemented." I did not see a requirement that in order to propose an extension to Ada one must be an expert in Ada compilers. In fact in some cases, it may be that such expertise could even be detrimental. As I have repeatedly stated, there are both technology driven and market driven aspects to product development. In my own field of Analytical Cytology (Biomedical Engineering), I would never limit customer or marketing suggestions to only those that the individual who made the proposal actually knew how to do the implementation. In fact one major reason for selecting one of the 3 proposed implementations is: How easy would it be to teach in a first year computer science course? I might note that my suggestion came from the problem of implementing a software package. -----Original Message----- From: Pascal Leroy [mailto:pleroy@rational.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:34 PM To: rleif@rleif.com Cc: Ada-Comment List Subject: Re: [Ada-Comment] Extensible Enumerated Types > Topic: Extensible Enumerated Types > > type Prefix_Type is (None, Mr, Ms, Miss, Mrs, Dr, Prof, Rev, Other); > > (1) > supertype Army_Prefix_Type is (Prefix_Type, Private, Corporal, Sergeant, > Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Colonel, General); > > (2) > type Army_Prefix_Type is new Prefix_Type with (Private, Corporal, Sergeant, > Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Colonel, General); > > (3) > type Army_Prefix_Type is (Prefix_Type�range & ((Private, Corporal, Sergeant, > Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Colonel, General)); Extensible enumeration types are certainly an interesting idea. In fact at some point during the 9X process they were part of the Mapping Document, and got trimmed. I think Tuck mentioned them again during the last ARG meeting. But if you feel that this feature should be added to the language, I encourage you to write a detailed proposal on how this would be integrated with the rest of the language, and how it could be implemented. Coming up with syntax is very easy (I have no doubt that the "right" syntax is #2, btw) but that's only about 1% of the work. I think that the ARG would be much more interested in looking at this idea if there were a real proposal on the table, rather than a one-line example of the syntax. If we had a real proposal, it would also be possible to evaluate the implementation complexity and balance that with the potential benefits. If you are interested in writing such a proposal, just send it to Ada-Comment and it will be given due consideration. Pascal