CVS difference for ais/ai-00388.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00388.txt

--- ais/ai-00388.txt	2005/01/07 03:07:45	1.4
+++ ais/ai-00388.txt	2005/01/28 02:10:50	1.5
@@ -96,4 +96,210 @@
 
 !appendix
 
+From: Dan Eilers
+Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005  5:49 PM
+
+  What's the story with AI-388, which claims that Ada code would
+print better if numerics.pi used the UTF-8 symbol.   But there
+are a lot of Ada symbols that would print better if Ada used the
+UTF-symbol, such as *, /, <=, >=, /=, etc.  Using UTF-8 only for
+PI makes it stick out like a sore thumb.
+
 *************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005  6:20 PM
+
+I don't know, I was strongly against it (for this and other reasons) and in
+fact voted against it at the ARG level (see the Atlanta minutes). I
+apparently wasn't very convincing...(the vote was 8-1-1). But it's not
+important enough to get all worked up about.
+
+We had talked about allowing overloading for various Unicode symbols early
+on in the process, but essentially decided that there was nothing near a
+consensus on what to allow. (See AI-322, sorry I forget which meeting we
+discussed that AI.)
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005  9:56 PM
+
+Yes, indeed, this is an indulgeance we could do without. But
+I guess someone felt strongly about it, and apparently the general
+reaction was that it was not horrible enough to make a fuss about.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005  9:58 PM
+
+> I don't know, I was strongly against it (for this and other reasons) and in
+> fact voted against it at the ARG level (see the Atlanta minutes). I
+> apparently wasn't very convincing...(the vote was 8-1-1). But it's not
+> important enough to get all worked up about.
+
+Very peculiar (the vote ...)
+
+However, it really is not hard to handle, the Ada.Numerics package in GNAT now
+looks like
+
+package Ada.Numerics is
+pragma Pure (Numerics);
+
+    Argument_Error : exception;
+
+    Pi : constant :=
+           3.14159_26535_89793_23846_26433_83279_50288_41971_69399_37511;
+
+    ["03C0"] : constant := Pi;
+    --  This is the greek letter Pi. Note that it is conforming to have this
+    --  present even in Ada 95 mode, because there is no way for a normal mode
+    --  Ada 95 program to reference this identifier in any case.
+
+    e : constant :=
+          2.71828_18284_59045_23536_02874_71352_66249_77572_47093_69996;
+
+end Ada.Numerics;
+
+:-)
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Dan Eilers
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  6:29 PM
+
+I do think this is horrible enough to make a fuss about.
+It seems to be a complete breakdown of the AI process.
+There is no documented user demand for this silly feature,
+and the AI contains absolutely no record of any discussion.
+
+It's particularly galling to see AI's with no user demand
+making the cut at this late stage, when many AI's and AC's
+that do have documented user demand and discussion (e.g., AI 390)
+didn't.
+
+I expect many Ada projects will enforce pragma restrictions(no_wide_characters),
+(in order to be able to discuss program fragments in email and
+process with ASCII-based tools).  It will be a considerable burden
+for these projects to have to maintain a copy of the Ada.Numerics
+hierarchy that eliminates the Greek Pi.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  6:50 PM
+
+> I do think this is horrible enough to make a fuss about.
+> It seems to be a complete breakdown of the AI process.
+> There is no documented user demand for this silly feature,
+> and the AI contains absolutely no record of any discussion.
+
+Why would the AI contain a discussion? Lots of AIs have no e-mail
+discussion. It was discussed for quite a while in Atlanta; it certainly
+wasn't "snuck in".
+
+> It's particularly galling to see AI's with no user demand
+> making the cut at this late stage, when many AI's and AC's
+> that do have documented user demand and discussion (e.g., AI 390)
+> didn't.
+
+The AIs in that category (I'd include AI-359 and AI-315 there, too) didn't
+make the cut because their solutions were too complex for the gain. In the
+case of AI-390, for instance, the proposal was so narrow and obscure that it
+seems unlikely that users would know to use it even when the problem was
+encountered. (I know I would be unlikely to remember this weird feature in
+the very rare case that it was needed.) The problem is worth solving, but we
+didn't have a solution that we were comfortable with, and we have to stop
+adding things at some point, or we'd never finish.
+
+I don't like this AI anymore than you do, but the AI went through the
+process; because it was easy, there wasn't a need for lots of drafts and
+discussion -- it came down to a simple yes or no vote. And the vote showed
+the needed consensus, even if it came out wrong. The result seems a lot
+clearer than the presidential election, for instance.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Dan Eilers
+Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005  3:28 AM
+
+> Why would the AI contain a discussion? Lots of AIs have no e-mail
+> discussion. It was discussed for quite a while in Atlanta; it certainly
+> wasn't "snuck in".
+
+The AI would contain a discussion because the originator would
+send email saying something like I know that WG9 has already
+approved the scope of the language, but I've come across an
+issue that I think is really important to squeeze in because ...
+And someone else will respond either by seconding it, or
+by saying they think the language is insufficiently broke,
+or by pointing out problems with the proposal, such as the
+glaring inconsistency this proposal creates between the one
+mathematical symbol represented in unicode, and no others.
+
+> I don't like this AI anymore than you do, but the AI went through the
+> process; because it was easy, there wasn't a need for lots of drafts and
+> discussion -- it came down to a simple yes or no vote.
+
+I'm not sure what you mean by "easy".  Yes, its a one-line
+source change, but that doesn't mean the ramifications to
+the consistency of the language or to users that don't want
+wide_characters shoved in their faces, don't merit more
+consideration than the short time available at a single ARG meeting.
+
+> In the case of AI-390, for instance, the proposal was so narrow and
+> obscure that it seems unlikely that users would know to use it even
+> when the problem was encountered. (I know I would be unlikely to
+> remember this weird feature in the very rare case that it was needed.)
+> The problem is worth solving, but we didn't have a solution that we
+> were comfortable with, and we have to stop adding things at some point,
+> or we'd never finish.
+
+I agree that the proposed syntax was somewhat obscure.  I think this
+was done to avoid adding a new keyword, such as the less obscure:
+  procedure foo is inherited;
+
+Given the urgency of this problem for our customers, we will probably
+resort to implementing a solution using a pragma such as:
+  pragma inherited(foo);
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005  5:14 AM
+
+> I do think this is horrible enough to make a fuss about.
+> It seems to be a complete breakdown of the AI process.
+> There is no documented user demand for this silly feature,
+> and the AI contains absolutely no record of any discussion.
+
+That you don't like the conclusion of the AI is certainly legitimate, and
+it happens to all of us from time to time.
+
+That you claim that this is "a complete breakdown of the process" is an
+entirely different statement, which questions my integrity and that of the
+ARG in general.
+
+I don't think that you have any factual evidence that the ARG procedures
+were not dutifully followed in this instance.  True, there was no email
+exchange, but I don't see anything in the procedures that requires an
+email exchange.  The procedures require that each AI be discussed at a
+meeting, and this is what happened in Atlanta, and the minutes summarize
+the discussion. True, the discussion was rather short, but this is
+probably because people were able to make up their mind relatively
+quickly.  I certainly didn't put a lid on the discussion or try to shorten
+it in any way.
+
+Of course the procedures allow any ARG member to ask for a letter ballot
+on any AI that has not been sent to WG9 yet, so you might try to convince
+some member to do that.  If that happens I will conduct the letter ballot
+as required by the procedures, and I will put the AI on the agenda of the
+Boston meeting if the ballot fails.
+
+If you still think that the process has not been obeyed, I guess you'll
+have to lodge a complaint with WG9 through the US TAG.  But this mailing
+list is not the appropriate medium for doing this.
+
+*************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent