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: Theodore Dennison Subject: Is "Ada" 95 or 83? (was: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ?) Date: 1995/04/05 Message-ID: <3lva0m$f31@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100939342 references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk> <1995Mar28.115614.9511@eisner> <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 organization: IPL InterNetNews site x-url: news:3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 1.1b2 (X11; I; SunOS 4.1.3_U1 sun4c) Date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >pragma Atomic is in Ada 85, it is not found in the obsolete language defined >by the previous standard. > >Seriously, we should from now on consider on this newsgroup that Ada means >Ada 95 by default. If people want to ask questions or make comments about >Ada 83 they should be careful to specify that this is what they are talking >about. I think that will be a good idea, once a validated Ada 95 compiler exists. Gnat, R.R., and others have compilers that are damn close, perhaps even actually conform, but at the moment there is no Ada 95 compiler. This should only be an issue for another month or so. You guys can wait that long, can't you? T.E.D. (structured programming mafioso)