From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Extended modal types
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 02:31:35 GMT
Date: 2002-05-29T02:31:35+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <wccd6vfelbs.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5ee5b646.0205250757.60c9715a@posting.google.com
dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> Actually a bit of history as to how this mistake came to
> pass is of interest:
...
> Tuck and Bob responded that they had a commitment to
> implement the URG recommendations, and claimed that the
> URG had recommended this. As chair of the URG, I knew
> just how wrong this was :-)
Robert,
Your history is slightly wrong. I never wanted to have non-binary
modular types, and I agree with you that they are a mistake.
Modular types are one of my least favorite features of Ada 95.
If anybody cares, I could rant for several paragraphs about
what's wrong with them.
- Bob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-29 2:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-24 8:53 Extended modal types Anatoly Chernyshev
2002-05-24 11:38 ` Marc A. Criley
2002-05-25 15:57 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-25 18:06 ` Frank J. Lhota
2002-05-25 18:40 ` Florian Weimer
2002-05-25 21:56 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2002-05-27 4:57 ` Robert I. Eachus
2002-05-27 5:52 ` Florian Weimer
2002-05-27 23:47 ` Robert I. Eachus
2002-05-29 1:16 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-29 2:31 ` Robert A Duff [this message]
2002-05-29 9:19 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2002-05-29 9:54 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-29 15:20 ` Anatoly Chernyshev
2002-05-29 23:36 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox