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: 103376,463c997594f91391
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Get_Immediate warning, (was: How to get a character?)
Date: 1999/04/14
Message-ID: <1999Apr14.150213.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 466408432
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <370EE07D.67C71458@dave-world.net> <m33e28zt36.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
 <87hfqkgnrm.fsf@bglbv.my-dejanews.com>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 924116538 16166 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <87hfqkgnrm.fsf@bglbv.my-dejanews.com>, bglbv@my-dejanews.com writes:

> to Get_Line. The standard is clearly written under the assumption that
> interactive input isn't normally buffered more than one line at a
> time, but this doesn't seem to be even an Implementation Advice,
> much less a requirement.

If that assumption were made, it would certainly indicate those
making the assumption lacked some degree of experience with real
operating systems.

> and keyboard input shouldn't be buffered in multi-line units without
> good reason either (but this doesn't need to be documented in Annex M
> as far as I can tell).

So what was the approach taken by the GNAT developers when
they encountered the VMS implementation of typeahead buffers?

Larry Kilgallen