Re: Latest GNAT version

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> Not at all. All that is settled is that it will be called that until the
> standard is published (just like the previous version was called "Ada 9X"
> until it was published). At that point, the topic will be revisted.
> 
> I think it is a mistake to use the same name before and after publication of
> the standard, because in that case it is impossible to tell whether
> articles, web pages, etc. are based on earlier drafts or on the final
> thing -- and there typically are enough differences that it will matter.

I agree ("it is a mistake to use the same name before and after...").

> Personally, I think it is a mistake to use a particular year in the name
> until it is standardized, and I'll be using "Ada 200Y" in my personal
> correspondence.

Randy, could I persuade you to say "Ada 200X"?  (And, in 10 years,
"201X"?)  The "X" just stands for who-knows-which-year.  The "Y" leads
to silly anti-Ada jokes, like "Ada -- Oy" and "Ada, Oh why?".  OTOH,
"Ada Ox" sounds OK to me (an ox is powerful).

>... (Of course, in official documents, I'll use whatever I'm
> required to do.) And, in any case, the official name of the language is and
> will remain "Ada", and that's all that's needed for the general public.
> (Only in places with lots of existing Ada users, like here, is it necessary
> to tell the difference.)

Right.

What matters, of course, is when compiler writers produce
implementations of Ada 200X.  They are working on it even as we speak!

What matters much less is which year (2005? 2006?) ISO gets around to
finishing the red tape and declaring it official.  That can take some
time.

- Bob