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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/10/13
Message-ID: <1996Oct13.192741.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189234901
x-nntp-posting-host: eisner.decus.org
references: <DyxtAA.Ez5@world.std.com>
 <01bbb57f$7fb59020$72663389@billn.logicon.com> <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com>
 <325BED6A.63F4@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <dewar.844950746@merv>
 <325EB65B.132F@thomsoft.com> <dewar.845091423@merv>
 <heatwole-ya023180001210960949270001@news.his.com> <dewar.845149842@merv>
x-nntp-posting-user: KILGALLEN
x-trace: 845249277/23027
organization: LJK Software
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.845149842@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> I would personally like to see all the Ada 95 compilers implement all the
> annexes, except in cases where it makes no sense (I don't think the Patriot
> compiler needs to compute payrolls using the information systems annex :-).
> That's because I think the semantics in the distribution annex and the other
> special needs annexes greatly increase the semantic power of the language.

I imagine all Ada fans would like that ultimately, but for many
of us there are higher priority deliverables in areas such as
ease-of-use, code efficiency, etc. from compiler implementors.

I don't care about any annex until I need to use it :-)

Larry Kilgallen