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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-18 12:04:20 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:03:55 GMT References: <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch> <3D0D4274.6C5E02F9@acm.org> <4519e058.0206170753.599fd771@posting.google.com> Brian Rogoff writes: > While I agree, the chances for such a change in Ada are infinitesimal. > Better to complain about things that may actually get fixed, like > downward funargs, or a more powerful (C++ like ;) exception system. I think it's fun to argue about the way it ought to be, even if there is zero chance of fixing it. Many changes are impossible because they would break existing code, but are nonetheless fun to talk about. Maybe in some future language... - Bob