Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:45:03 +0200 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
Organization: |
Adalog |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> 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
|
|
|