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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site gypsy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!siemens!gypsy!rosen
From: rosen@gypsy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: A few questions on Ada standards
Message-ID: <38000018@gypsy.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 11:59:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: gypsy.38000018
Posted: Thu Jun  6 11:59:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 03:01:16 EDT
References: <1171@sjuvax.UUCP>
Nf-ID: #R:sjuvax:-117100:gypsy:38000018:000:1184
Nf-From: gypsy!rosen    Jun  6 11:59:00 1985
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> 
> 	My problem is this:  I have recently joined a project for the writing
> of an Ada compiler, and have found what I believe to be a few flaws in 
> some of the assumptions that has been made about Ada.  I brought these
> matters to the attention of the others involved, and now we are indecisive
> about a few directions to take on certain matters.
> 

First off, you don't make it clear what you mean by 'flaws in some of the
assumptions'.  Do mean that certain parts of the LRM are ambiguous, or that
there apear to be contridictions in it?  What I think you mean is that you
and the others that you are involved appear to be in diagreement as to some
of the semantics of the Ada language.

If you have a valid gripe or comment about the LRM then you can contact:

Ada-Comment@ECLB

or send mail to:

Ada Joint Program Office
Office of the Under Secretary of Defence Research and Engineering
Washington, DC 20301

Check the Section:

Postscript: Submission of Comments

in the back of the LRM for more details on this.


Steve Rosen
Siemens Research and Technology Laboratories
Princeton, NJ

USENET: {ihnp4|princeton|adrvax}!siemens!rosen
ARPA:   princeton!siemens!rosen@TOPAZ