From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,30c7725dc9463cd5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Nick Roberts" Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter Date: 1997/04/20 Message-ID: <01bc4daa$85850e40$f4f582c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 236193310 References: <5j1cm7$atn@news.ida.org> Organization: UUNet PIPEX server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet PIPEX) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote in article ... > However, once the principle did exist, I think it helped change viewpoints, > and in particular was a definite factor in the development of the notion > of "usage oriented testing" which informed the development of the Ada 95 > ACVC tests. Yes, providing that it not seen by those outside the Ada community as a convenient 'get out', whereby Ada compiler vendors are excused having to conform fully to the RM. We all know that this would be completely unfair, but outsiders might not. I agree with the "pathological" classification, but we have to be careful that it never gets abused, bringing the Ada language into disrepute. Nick.