> 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