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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,277c0c9e7199d9f5,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: sl65r@cc.usu.edu (Paul Hepworth)
Subject: Ada Mandate / Ada95 validation (was Re: ada for pc(dos an linux))
Date: 1996/01/08
Message-ID: <1996Jan8.145052.70798@cc.usu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 134430676
organization: Utah State University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-01-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Just trying to get the topic in line with the discussion :)

>> > As far as policy goes, AJPO policy is that the period until March 1997
>> > is a technology transition period, where new Ada compilers can be validated
>> > against either the Ada83 or Ada95 standard.  DoD policy, expressed in
>> > directive 3405-1, currently only allows Ada83.  And NIST, the sole authority
>> > for US Government language standards apparently removed its logo from
>> > current Ada95 validation certificates on the grounds that the Ada95
>> > validation suite 2.0 is only about half complete.
>> Dan, could you explain a bit more about what is going on with NIST and Ada
>> 95 validation? Also, my reading of 3405.1 seems to imply that everyone
>> should now be using Ada 95 since that is now Ada, although it is not yet
>> desirable or even possible for everyone to use Ada 95.
> 
> I'd like to know this as well. I'm hearing a growing confusion over 
> which version of the language is now "mandated". I'm even hearing some 
> wishful-thinking C folks claim that the mandate is now invalid because
> of the language transition. It would be nice to know what the status of
> the "Ada Mandate" is. It seems there may now be a hole in it large
> enough to drive a truck through.