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: 103376,4d85dafcfa1dcde6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-09 09:17:01 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.nospam@nospamassen.nospamdemon.co.uk (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OT:GNAT (Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 16:18:19 GMT
Message-ID: <3cdaa115.30583957@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <9Y1A8.25350$D%5.3478@sccrnsc01>
 <iQfB8.1478$l55.3505@news2.bredband.com>
 <slrnadcku7.b7d.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <5ee5b646.0205061352.456c075a@posting.google.com>
 <slrnadfa2u.33h.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3cd7b506.11293318@news.demon.co.uk>
 <5ee5b646.0205071834.3b5c959@posting.google.com>
 <mailman.1020890403.25658.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3cda2fc8.1578790@news.demon.co.uk> <3CDA7D48.EB507B6A@despammed.com>
 <3cda8b63.25030221@news.demon.co.uk> <uwuudtjuk.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1020960995 nnrp-14:25734 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23775
Date: 2002-05-09T16:18:19+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 09 May 2002 17:35:31 +0200, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

>
>john.nospam@nospamassen.nospamdemon.co.uk (John McCabe) writes:
>
>> I wasn't aware that they had, but if that *is* the case then it's fair
>> enough.
>
>The problem was with "Translator", a lot of peoples thought that GNAT
>translated Ada to C and then compile. This is wrong as everybody knows at
>this point.

Yes - that was an *extremely* common misconception, even though it
could have made some sense (well, for Ada83 I guess). I made it myself
actually until I was put right.