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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ames!sun-barr!newstop!sun!brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM!grover
From: grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (Vinod Grover)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: TEXT_IO anomality
Message-ID: <139622@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 26 Jul 90 15:02:21 GMT
References: <9007241309.AA00417@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> <2020@cod.NOSC.MIL> <26496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <26496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> hilfingr@tully.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Hilfinger) writes:
>                                                      14.3(8) indicates
>that it is these terminators that are counted when determining the value
>of LINE---regardless of any other effects on the external file. 

Also, the terminators are not required to be characters or sequences or
characters. Furthermore the effect of these terminators on the external
files may not be a simple constant function.  It could possibly be a
function of the state of the (internal) file. I learned this while
implementing TEXT_IO on a non-standard  operating system. 

The thing that I find most bewildering about the specification of TEXT_IO is
that it does not state that a put followed by a get must yield the same data
that was the argument to the put, though ACVCs check for it. Is there a
rationale for this or am I missing something?

Vinod Grover
Sun Microsystems