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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d4bb9272b7314785
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: ObjectAda - no clock drift!
Date: 1998/06/18
Message-ID: <1998Jun17.221533.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 363720652
References: <6m6f0t$1ue$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <6m7r5m$4gn$1@usenet.rational.com> <6m904m$vv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
X-Trace: news.decus.org 898136136 3288 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-06-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <6m904m$vv0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dennison@telepath.com writes:

> In all fairness to Aonix, there's no way they could know what the clock drift
> rate for the hardware in any particular PC is. But they should have said that,
> rather than answering half the question in an incredibly terse manner.

Well, Aonix was describing a compiler, not a computing system.

If the RM applies to compilers rather than computing systems,
_it_ should provide the wording that excludes drift beyond the
control of compilers.

On the other hand, some of the responses in this group have
indicated that the intentional style of the RM is terse. If
so, Aonix would seem to be fully justified in responding in
the same style.

Larry Kilgallen