Other Language Libraries

The IO Pages in "Other Language Libraries" are misplaced sinces there are two hooks allready. One in "Predefined Language Library" (Entry "Ada") and one in "Language Features" (Entry "Input Output").

--Krischik 13:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AI302

since Programming:Ada:Packages:Ada already allow for Ada 2005 I don't think that the AI302 need to be described.

--Krischik 14:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added to bookshelf

I have taken the liberty to add the book to the IT bookshelf on the main page of WikiBooks. I rated it 50% = Maturing. --14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

mention tasking earlier?

Shouldn't the section "Conclusion" mention that Ada provides the means to get tasking right by offering language means? Maybe in the paragraph on the advantages of spec/body, strong/weak typing.

(I'm not in a position to add such things :-) -- Georg

Shure. Anyone to voleteer? (I'm currently involved in adding more chapters since there are more voleteers for improving existing chapters then for creating new ones.)

BTW: Good work on Programming:Ada:Subtypes

--Krischik 08:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorting in category

Currently almost all the pages in Category:Ada programming language are sorted by the page name, so all appear at P heading. By adding [[Category:Ada programming language|key]] we can sort by the key. I think the key should usually be the second or the last word in the title to get a kind of index of terms in the book. Another category could be used to sort by a chapter number in order to get a kind of table of contents. ManuelGR 00:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the second word I meant all the string after stripping Programming:Ada, i.e. I think there are two possibilities for the key of Programming:Ada:Libraries:Container:Booch:

# Libraries:Container:Booch

# Booch

The question is whether we want to put together full branches or want to sort by concrete items. ManuelGR 00:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not know that - otherwise I would have made all category links like that. Anyway: concrete items! There will be some very large branches - like the pragma or attribute branch. And there is the "least suprise" argument: concrete is allwas concrete.

1. Libraries:Container:Booch
2. Container:Booch
3. Booch

--Krischik 08:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki is full of magic! I agree with you about the concrete stuff. BTW, we have a Spanish wikibook on Ada. I will probably pick some ideas from this one for the other and I hope, viceversa. ManuelGR 19:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm creating stubs for every keyword that don't have an article yet. I'm agree that for the Ada programming language Category the best option is to sort with the name of the keyword. But for the Ada unfinished article I thinl it should be better to sort with the key "Keywords:id" so anyone who goes to that category to complete articles can see how many keywords needs to be done, and so on. I think it could be done also with other pages that are in that category, like "Special" ones. Of course, the same policy for the Ada unfinished article category. What do you think? --suruena 21:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note that Wiki categegories are case sensitive (thank you Martin for pointing me this!), so [[Category:Ada programming language|procedure]] is not the same as [[Category:Ada programming language|Procedure]]. The later is the preferred form. --suruena 14:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've classified Programming:Ada at [[Category:Ada programming language| ]] (modified the key: Ada -> blank space) because it is the main page (it's more visible this way than at the "A"). --suruena 14:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Things to look out for

I think this text might be better in Programming:Ada:Basic - in front of the hello world.

--Krischik 20:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's too large for the main page. Maybe language history should be separated in a different page too. ManuelGR 21:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking that too. Mind you - most of history is copied from wikipedia - so we might just refear to wikipedia anyway --Krischik 04:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It might be, I don't see a clear way for they to evolve differently. Maybe this version might be more informal and concise? By the way, in Wikipedia we have the policy of mentioning in the Summary field from what page has been copied something. This is aimed to track changes and recognize the contributions to its original authors (although an unregistered user does not seem to request too much credit, as is this case). ManuelGR 21:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)