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: 103376,505b52f527b29fd6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dennison <dennison@iag.net>
Subject: Re: Are there any "bad" Ada constructs?
Date: 1996/09/05
Message-ID: <322F87B2.6024@iag.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 178785094
references: <322E16DC.74B1@swcp.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: The Dennison Family
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I)
Date: 1996-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Gordon Dodrill wrote:
> 
> The C and C++ language have several constructs that are undefined enough
> that two conforming compilers are permitted to give different results and
> still be correct.  One example is,

> My question is: Are there any constructs in Ada that are permitted to do
>     two or more different things and still be correct, in a manner that
>     is similar to that listed above?

In Ada 83, anything defined in the LRM to be "erronious" would fall into
this catagory.

-- 
email    - mailto:dennison@iag.net
homepage - http://www.iag.net/~dennison