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-Thread: 103376,c08a7609345f4e5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited use for limited with?
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:31:54 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccwrq5ai5x.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: 
 <853314bc-0f79-435f-86a5-d7bcdd610731@c10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <2d380627-480e-4093-9a0f-a88beb70b189@q28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1285695103 15414 192.74.137.71 (28 Sep 2010 17:31:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:31:43 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kk31QKxek5SY0n3fiW3KIMQAI8A=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14298
Date: 2010-09-28T13:31:54-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:

> So it really rubs me the wrong way to see comments---not from you, but
> from someone else---such as "Ada2012 should relax rules to make
> limited with more useful."

Well, ahem, the ARG actually IS considering some changes to
make 'limited with' more useful.  Sorry, I don't remember
the AI number(s).

>...Perhaps it's because I'm reaching the
> Grumpy-Old-Fart-In-Training phase of my life.  But given the amount of
> work the ARG put into this over a number of years, can't we at least
> assume that they did the best they could to make it as useful as they
> could, and that whatever rules are there that you don't like are there
> for a very good reason?

As a member of ARG, I'd like to point out that "lots of hard work"
does not always produce good solutions.  Maybe we all were
confused, and a fresh look would produce something better.

As always, the primary difficulty is remaining compatible
with early versions of the language.  And the second one
is making it implementable by existing compilers, which
were of course designed without knowing about whatever
new rules the ARG is cooking up.  Without those two
concerns, fixing the "cyclic imports" problem is easy.

>...Jeesh, now I sound like I'm talking to my
> teenager.  Definitely headed for G.O.F. at full speed.

;-) ;-)

> I'm certainly not opposed to people wanting changes in the language
> (although it's too late for Ada 2012); but in this case, I'd recommend
> that if anyone wants to see this change, they should read the
> discussions in all the AI95-217 options (AI95-217-1 through 7) to make
> sure they understand all the issues, and then propose something
> specific.

Sure, it's a good idea to look at previous work in the area.
Don't take it as The Ultimate Truth, though.

- Bob