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,e977cd3ab4e49fef X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ken Garlington Subject: Re: Question about record rep spec placement Date: 1997/01/18 Message-ID: <32E11C0E.697B@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 210697436 references: <32DF9F55.7EA3@lmtas.lmco.com> <5bof0o$q0i@zeus.orl.mmc.com> <32E02DB1.6E06@lmtas.lmco.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; U) Date: 1997-01-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > > By and large, the Ada 95 rules are *more* > permissive than the Ada 83 rules. > Oh, I thought you were saying you saw many cases where Ada was _less_ permissive than Ada83, causing upward incompatibilities. > It's happened to me more than once. But it doesn't happen a LOT. Then a style rule suggesting the placement of rep specs in the private area shouldn't usually cause problems, and where it does, a comment should suffice. > > - Bob -- LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality" For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com