Re: Ada2005 clear screen etc.

[Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov>]

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