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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2106dd704b99f22c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-16 13:31:54 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!slsv6bt!slbh01.bln.sel.alcatel.de!rcvie!Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.ACO.net!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!news From: weber@lglsun.epfl.ch (Mats Weber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC DIS 8652 and ISO/IEC DIS 14519-1 Date: 15 Sep 1994 21:16:59 GMT Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Sender: madmats@lglsun.epfl.ch Message-ID: <35adkb$t8a@info.epfl.ch> References: <19940915.5134@naggum.no> NNTP-Posting-Host: sicsts3.epfl.ch X-Posted-From: InterNews 1.0.1@sicsts3.epfl.ch X-Authenticated: madmats on POP host lglsun.epfl.ch Date: 1994-09-15T21:16:59+00:00 List-Id: In article emery@goldfinger.mitre.org (David Emery) writes: > Now, the real technical question is: Does POSIX/Ada have value for > Ada9X? The answer (IMHO) is "Yes". The POSIX/Ada standard is upwards > compatable with Ada9X. The only 9X issue is the use of interrupt > entries for signal handlers, a feature declared obsolete in Ada9X. > Other than that, the Ada83 binding is completely consistent with > Ada9x. I second that. I read the draft five years ago and made some comments on it. By that time, I thougth that it was very nearly ready for approval. I see no major Ada 9X features except child library units that could make this standard significantly better. I would prefer having this standard approved now than having it delayed (for another 5 years ? :-) just for a few easthetic fixes. Besides, I think 1003.5 is, with the Ada-SQL binding, the most important standard for Ada.