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,c7d533acec91ae16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org>
Subject: Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95
Date: 1999/04/27
Message-ID: <3725EE85.54163275@aasaa.ofe.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471536280
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7g2qu4$ca4$1@usenet.rational.com>
 <7g3b5g$p92$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g4ae3$hjh2@ftp.kvaerner.com>
 <3725C49E.8106A44B@aasaa.ofe.org> <7g4mrs$v5n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> In article <3725C49E.8106A44B@aasaa.ofe.org>,
>   David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote:
> > But that was a deliberate choice. IIRC, Ada 83 depended
> > on ASCII which supplied [], so they could have gone with
> > brackets.
> 
> This is bad history! The requirement for the character set
> in Ada 83 was much more strenuous, it included
> compatibility with current common usage, which included
> EBCDIC (e.g. IBM keypunches) which did NOT provide the []
> characters.

Interesting. Then why was support for package ASCII required, and how
was it supposed to be supported in a non-ASCII enviroment?