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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f44e8b91bd1d669d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-21 17:02:42 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn1feed!wn2feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CEAE05B.A52B1675@attbi.com> From: Mark Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Unusual syntax References: <5ee5b646.0205170201.2582c8ef@posting.google.com> <3CE55D49.70638FEE@acm.org> <5ee5b646.0205182030.45ade229@posting.google.com> <3CE812B1.492EF78E@acm.org> <3CE9B65A.BE66B61C@acm.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.235.88.57 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1022025761 12.235.88.57 (Wed, 22 May 2002 00:02:41 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:02:41 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:02:41 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24490 Date: 2002-05-22T00:02:41+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > Ahhh The bureaucracy that comes with the military. :-) I really don't know > what sort of "Official" status Ada80 had - except that a) nobody built any > compilers to that standard (at least not any that got any sort of widespread > circulation) and b) my recollection of the intent was that it was never > supposed to serve as some sort of "final" standard by which people should be > guided in developing compilers. The intent was that it was to be reviewed, > commented on and eventually revised, so in a sense it was never a "real" > standard. Clearly, for paperwork purposes, it was given a number and maybe > in some bureaucratic sense it was therefore an "Official" standard - but for > practical purposes it wasn't used that way. Some more history: The DOD let out 4 contracts for designing the language that would later be called Ada. The 4 language specs were given the names Red, Blue, Yellow and Green and set out to a panel of "Distinguished Reviewers" for comment. The result of that was that Red and Green were selected for further development. Eventually Green was chosen and named Ada. This is why copies of the Ada standard are traditionally printed with green covers. MIL-STD-1815 or Ada80 was basically an unchanged version of the final Green spec. After some more review and comment, a finalized version of the Ada language spec was released as Ada83 or MIL-STD-1815A. -- Mark Biggar mark.a.biggar@attbi.com