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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6bbb7a00b26fc6b9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Form Feed To Printer Date: 1995/04/04 Message-ID: <3ls74n$nqc@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100815590 references: <3l35sr$1o4@toads.pgh.pa.us> <3lbvk0$1v0@hacgate2.hac.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-04-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Pascal Obry suggests using the Latin_1 package instead of Ascii for simple accesses to control characters. I think that is a mistake. Ascii is not "obsolete" it is obsolescent, which means that the designers think it might be considered for removal, but for the moment if is a first class citizen in Ada 95, and can be used freely. Personally I think the probability of this package disappearing in the future is 0.00000000% The trouble with using Latin_1 is twofold first it drags in a lot of junk, which is likely to slow down compilation. by contrast ASCII is right there in standard, no use clause or with clause required. second, if you are in a localized environment, say one using Latin-2, then it may cause torubles to with Latin-1 as well. This is just personal opinion, my own feeling is that the obsolescent features annex of Ada 95 is a mistake. Anyway, it is important for people to realize that all features in this annex are 100% required and 100% available. It is only a matter of aesthetics as to whether one should use them. They have been retained because they are used and potentially useful. You can feel free to use them!