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,b386f2cc2e9ff212
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-11-04 19:14:43 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!gwu.edu!gwu.edu!not-for-mail
From: mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interfaces.Ada
Date: 4 Nov 1994 22:14:43 -0500
Organization: George Washington University
Message-ID: <39etb3$hsc@felix.seas.gwu.edu>
References: <39602v$3rl@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <396agd$9bt@network.ucsd.edu>
 <39agv3$870@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.164.9.3
Date: 1994-11-04T22:14:43-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <39agv3$870@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>,
Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

>At this stage, obviously you can't be compatible with everyone automatically,
>but the pragma Convention (Fortran seems a nice approach in Ada 9X (it was
>actually my idea to put it in in this general form, so I'm of course biased
>in liking the way this is done :-)

I like it too. As you know, I've griped for years that Ada compiler 
implementers missed the boat in not providing something like this in 
their Ada 83 compilers (via an implementation-dependent pragma, say), 
as a way of gaining entree into the Fortran engineering world, which
rejected PL/I, as I recall, in part because of the lack of array 
compatibility. I'm very glad that Ada 9X has focused on the issue.

('Course now with Fortran 90 a real thing, perhaps it's too late.
I hope not. It would be really nice to have - and for engineers to use -
a really smooth Fortran-to-Ada interface. Hope GNAT fills in the 
Convention gap soon.)

Mike Feldman