Talk:Ada Programming/Libraries/Ada

Tags
Currently there are some packages tagged with Ada 83 because they are "only for backwards compatibility with Ada 83." They are packages like Ada.Integer_Text_IO or Ada.Long_Float_Wide_Text_IO, but as far as I known these preinstantations of the generic Ada.Text_IO.Integer_IO and Ada.Wide_Text_IO.Float_IO with the predefined numeric types are not for compatibility with Ada 83, but for simplifying the usage of IO facilities (e.g. when teaching the language, to use IO without learning generics). Did I missed something? Also, In my opinion this page should be split in two sections: Standard Ada packages and implementation dependent packages (like the modules about pragmas and attributes), and those generic instantiations allowed in the RM (like Ada.Long_Long_Integer_Text_IO) should be tagged as Optional, because although they are implementation dependent in the sense that not every compiler has the type Long_Long_Integer, these packages are not completely new like Ada.Wide_Text_IO.C_Streams. The package Ada.Command_Line is also optional, for instance. --surueña 08:23, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree about Ada.Integer_Text_IO or Ada.Long_Float_Wide_Text_IO not compatibility. Agree about splitting in sections. Not sure about Optional packages, I don't know what the RM says about it. ManuelGR 16:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The RM says about the package Ada.Command_Line []:
 * Implementation Permissions: An alternative declaration is allowed for package Command_Line if different functionality is appropriate for the external execution environment.
 * Also, the AI about package Ada.Directories states [(]:
 * Ada 95 has already opened the door to standard packages that are not necessarily applicable to all implementations with Ada.Command_Line.
 * Maybe the term "optional" is not very exact, but I think that it reflects well the status of these packages. --surueña 10:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)