Re: New proposals

[Jim Dehnert <dehnert at transmeta dot com>]

It's unfortunate that Todd just found out about this, particularly since
Ada support was one of the original areas people suggested interest in.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine doing a decent job on this without pushing
"completion" out significantly (six months?).  I also doubt that the current
group has enough Ada expertise to really provide good interaction on the
more complex stuff.

I think I would suggest the following:

  1) Give Todd some time, say a month, to:

	a) Make any proposals along the lines of clarifications or simple
	   extensions.  He's already got a significant start on this.

	b) Identify any 2.1 changes we've made that present serious or
	   easily fixable problems for Ada (which one should allow as part
	   of any public review anyway).

  2) Deal with them (in more or less the same time period when we're dealing
     with duplicate removal):

	a) Accept anything that the group, by concensus, feels comfortable with,
	   both understanding the rationale and not seeing likely problems.
	b) Deal with any serious problems identified.
	c) Then quit (within a month or two).

The objective should be to leave 2.1 Ada-friendly, but not necessary Ada-ready.
Once 2.1 is finalized (or even before then), move on to another round with Todd,
whoever's interested from the current round, and a serious effort to recruit
other interested Ada parties.  (If there aren't others, it's not clear that
there's much benefit in standardizing it.)

Jim
-- 
		Jim Dehnert		Transmeta Corp.
		dehnert@transmeta.com	(408) 919-6984
		dehnertj@acm.org