TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:45:03 +0200
Reply-To: Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Organization: Adalog
From: Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: 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 http://www.adalog.fr

ATOM RSS1 RSS2