CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0127-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0127-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0127-1.txt	2008/10/25 04:53:14	1.1
+++ ai05s/ai05-0127-1.txt	2008/11/14 02:39:45	1.2
@@ -365,3 +365,87 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Stephen Michell
+Date: Friday, October 24, 2008  8:50 PM
+
+As a member of a NATO team that is implementing libraries for use in more
+than a dozen countries, we are dealing with the issues of internatinalization
+and localization. Ada is used as the calculation engine, but Java and C++
+are dominating the user interface. 
+users ask, who has what we need now, not, please give me X. 
+many of our member nations are implementing on Windows, and some on Unix.
+A POSIX only binding doesn't help much.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Date: Friday, October 24, 2008  9:17 PM
+
+Trying to chase what users need now only means that you'll be giving them
+old technology when it gets done. It's a fools game; at best you have to
+give them what they'll need in a few years.
+
+And in that perspective, GUIs are going totally to the browser. Ada,
+unfortunately, has no role to play in such UIs, unless you think that Ada
+can replace Javascript in the browser. (If so, I have a hot new investment
+opportunity for you). Ada is well suited to -talk- to such UIs, and that
+is what we need to concentrate on.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Date: Friday, October 24, 2008  9:32 PM
+
+> I can see the point that such functionality shoul not be in
+> Ada.Characters.Handling, but it still makes sense to define locale-sensitive
+> conversions in Ada. Does it make sense to define this in Interfaces?
+
+The fact that something makes sense is not sufficient justification for adding
+a feature to the language. Seems a lot of complexity for little gain for a
+feature which has not in our experience been requested by any users.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008 10:11 AM
+
+This feature reminds me of leap seconds :-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Stephen Michell
+Date: Friday, October 24, 2008  9:42 PM
+
+But it is very little complexity. There is a localization standard, POSIX
+and Windows have implemented it. all we would be asking for is the interface glue.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Date: Friday, October 24, 2008  10:08 PM
+
+I don't know how you can say that. You'd have to describe the interfaces in
+Ada terms (reference to a particular implementation is not done currently in
+the Ada standard outside of the AARM, and surely we're going to keep to that).
+And you'd need a least-common denominator description, which is not going to
+save you any POSIX interface work -- you'll still have to provide a binding
+to the POSIX implementation for any advanced capabilities (and there are many,
+I would suspect).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008  10:12 AM
+
+> But it is very little complexity. There is a localization standard, POSIX and
+> Windows have implemented it. all we would be asking for is the interface glue.
+
+There are many operating systems that are neither Windows nor Posix compliant.
+VxWorks comes to mind immediately!
+
+I suspect similar arguments were used to justify adding leap seconds. 
+One difference is that we will never repeat the mistake of putting in so much
+effort to implement something so useless :-)
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent