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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,aba1514f4a1fc450 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.85.37 with SMTP id e5mr2469799paz.31.1345603329535; Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Path: t10ni14409903pbh.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Adam Beneschan Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong? Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:42:08 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <0ca8e290-722c-4f9d-9324-b29469874559@googlegroups.com> References: <077b12f6-1196-4b5c-bbdb-04291b1ae616@q22g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <589825d2-d998-456a-9c37-c8ae13e1e7bc@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1345603329 15252 127.0.0.1 (22 Aug 2012 02:42:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:42:09 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ User-Agent: G2/1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: 2012-08-21T19:42:08-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:32:55 PM UTC-7, Bill Findlay wrote: =20 > > At least during the AJPO period and MIL-STD/1815A, the Ada=20 > > specification was NO SUBSETS and NO SUPERSETS were permitted to call > > themselves Ada. (This doesn't cover optional annexes, just the core > > language). >=20 > Yes. That was enforced rigorously. But things are different now. >=20 > The Restrictions pragma allows the programmer to exclude features that ar= e > considered inappropriate for a particular application. So it could be sa= id > that Ada now has 2**N subsets, where N is the number of Restrictions=20 > options. I don't have an exact count, but N is of the order of 50. That's not at all the same thing. The first has to do with implementors pr= oviding a compiler that only implements a subset of the required Ada featur= es, and still calling it Ada; the second has to do with the language provid= ing a feature by which users can restrict the features they themselves use.= A compiler that handles all the features of Ada is not implementing a "su= bset" of Ada even if it supports all the Restrictions pragmas. =20 The big thing that's different is that while in the past, the US government= tried to copyright the name "Ada" and prevent implementors from calling in= completely implemented compilers "Ada compilers" by legal means, they don't= try to do that any more. -- Adam