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: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: l107353@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com (Garlington KE) Subject: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ? Date: 1995/04/05 Message-ID: <3lurur$esb@butch.lmsc.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100939367 references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk> <1995Mar28.115614.9511@eisner> <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jean D. Ichbiah (ichbiah@jdi.tiac.net) wrote: : Since when have you become an adept of the Soviet practice of : rewriting history? There is no such thing as Ada 83: it is called : Ada. Moreover, look at the cover of the new standard and as : far as I can read it refers to a language called Ada 95! Actually, mine just says "Information technology - Programming languages - Ada". : As a Gnat vendor your zeal at burrying Ada prematurely is : clearly understandable, but let us be a bottle of Dom Perignon : that total lines of Ada 95 do not exceed those of Ada before 2000? Ummm.. if I compile my Ada [not 95] code with my Tartan 9X compiler in a couple of years, will that make it Ada 95 code? If so, this might be an interesting bet! Will enough Ada [not 95] compilers support Ada 95 by 2000 that most of the existing Ada code has been recompiled under at least one of them by one user? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Garlington GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com F-22 Computer Resources Lockheed Fort Worth Co. If LFWC or the F-22 program has any opinions, they aren't telling me.