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: 103376,4c86cf2332cbe682
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-24 16:08:07 PST
Path: 
 pad-thai.cam.ov.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kei.com!hookup!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada.strings.bounded problems?
Date: 24 Jan 1995 09:38:49 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3g33dp$jr0@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <TARJEIJ.95Jan11183331@ulrik.uio.no> <D29L78.J9@nntpa.cb.att.com>
  <D2MpsE.HyJ@thomsoft.com> <1995Jan19.185316.2225@nbivax.nbi.dk>
 <1995Jan20.120612@lglsun.epfl.ch> <3fomrv$7i9@disunms.epfl.ch>
 <3frlfa$rp2@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <1995Jan23.135503@lglsun.epfl.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-01-24T09:38:49-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robb Nebbe is exactly right, it is a tough call to decide between upwards
compatible semantics, and "doing things right". Of course you also have to 
be sure you understand what right is :-)

THe standard certainly contains the results of some delicate discussions in
this area. What is remarkable I think is that in pretty much every case, the
ISO group was able to reach a consensus on the right way to go. Doesn't mean
we made the right decision in every case, but it is remarkable how few
contentious issues there were once things settled down to final decisions.