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,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 108abf,d3bcc180a8b0eea4 X-Google-Attributes: gid108abf,public From: Bill Greene Subject: Re: [Fwd: F22 completes 11% of its Flight tests] Date: 2000/01/14 Message-ID: <387FCA73.3A61@Ganymede.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 572807863 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <387C8859.621FA20B@netscape.net> <387CC1C0.4C57E34C@quadruscorp.com> <387CEE4A.3965@Ganymede.com> <387F8E50.11D27E14@quadruscorp.com> <85oclj$nbp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: 14 Jan 2000 20:15:40 -0500, 208.240.117.1 Organization: Ganymede Software, Inc MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,rec.aviation.military Date: 2000-01-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ed Falis wrote: > > In article <387F8E50.11D27E14@quadruscorp.com>, > "Marin D. Condic" wrote: > The requirement > > is that the compiler provide a mode in which it will parse the standard > > Ada syntax and reject anything that is not standard. However, if the > > compiler has an "extended" mode in which it will interpret non-standard > > syntax, that is quite all right too. The goal here was that a project > > should have a means of restricting itself to the standard language to > > enhance portability, but if that were not a concern and a compiler had > > additional capabilities, it should be quite all right to use those > > facilities. > > I can't think of any Ada compiler that went that far, though. All > "extensions" I'm aware of have either been domain-oriented packages > (encouraged by the standard), or implementation-defined pragmas > (allowed by the language). DEC Ada featured mostly the former in its > Starlet package that enabled access to OS facilities, much as the > POSIX/Ada binding enabled access to POSIX compliant OS's. Earlier in this somewhat-long thread I asked: > But what does it mean to say that "VAX" violated a rule? Are you > talking about a particular Ada compiler for the VAX? If so, which > compiler is it and what sort of extensions are you referring to? > Implementation-defined attributes and pragmas? and jtarver replied > "extended instruction set" is what I am refering to. Perhaps he is really complaining about the instruction set of a CPU or processor architecture (the VAX), and not about a programming language (Ada) at all. Note his assertion that "VAX" violated some alleged design goal of Ada. Having tried unsuccessfully to discover his meaning by direct questions, all I can conclude is that he is blaming the Ada programming language (which he apparently thought was designed by DEC) for the fact that the VAX is non-compliant with the Data General instruction set! -- William R. Greene 1100 Perimeter Park Drive Ganymede Software, Inc. Suite 104 http://www.ganymede.com Morrisville, NC 27560 USA Phone: (919) 469-0997, ext. 280 Fax: (919) 469-5553