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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: David Shochat <shochat@itg-sepg.logicon.com>
Subject: Re: C++ Standardization (was: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/10/10
Message-ID: <325D29A3.308@itg-sepg.logicon.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 188526301
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>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Logicon Information Technology Group
mime-version: 1.0
reply-to: shochat@itg-sepg.logicon.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
Date: 1996-10-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Well you have to remember that some people are working in environments which
> require a validated compiler and sometimes this requirement takes precedence
> over capability. 

Yes, I understand that. My point concerned those who make that argument
about Ada 95, and then conclude that we should use C++. It's an
incredible double standard given C++'s standardization status.
-- David