TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:45:03 +0200
text/plain (15 lines)
> My topic here is, however, to know what Ada programmers and language
> lawyers would think "For-Loop Iteration for Real Type" for AdaXX.
This is typically something I would qualify as "nice-to-have", which in Ada-Land means: "leave it out".
There were a whole lot of "nice-to-have" features proposed for Ada95; however, if you consider that even the simplest feature takes
at least -say- one week to implement, test, document etc, adding these features would have delayed the appearance of compilers by
several years.

For this reason, the decision was taken that a feature would be added if and only if there was a serious demand for it, it solved
and actual (not theoretical) problem, and there was no easy way to solve the problem with previous tools. I think it was a good
decision, and still is. As pretty as you proposal may seem, I think it does not pass through this filter.
           J-P. Rosen ([log in to unmask])
Visit Adalog's web site at