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: 103376,92882847c09de3aa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-03 07:06:24 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Language Lawyers help on rep_specs
Date: 3 Jan 1995 10:06:24 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3ebp5g$j9t@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <393@hathor.CSS.GOV>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Keywords: Rep_Spec LRM
Date: 1995-01-03T10:06:24-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

You mention in your message comparing "two vendors Ada 95 compilers". Since
no vendor has an Ada 95 compiler yet, this can't be literally the case,
so we must assume you are dealing with two prereleases of partial
implementations.

The rep clause (not spec please!) is perfectly valid, and conversions are
static in Ada 95 (but not in Ada 83).