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-Thread: 103376,58253cbf46bbb1fc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.190.251.MISMATCH!transit4.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:44:55 -0500
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <pchapin@sover.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Automated conversion to C++?
References: <ygemyq24a5n.fsf@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
 <iNktj.34905$yE1.2410@attbi_s21>
  <bc0f9b78-814e-4599-86cf-6ddd461f1791@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 <gAi3fvx3BIHT@eisner.encompasserve.org>
In-Reply-To: <gAi3fvx3BIHT@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <47b9e03b$0$2787$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
Organization: SoVerNet (sover.net)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3c0681cf.news.sover.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=NgfM<a67R_6=RT:S6`J8?5K6_LM2JZB_3:fV3gBI5Pk>:WUUlR<856?36I8N;\ERX;:8IC<E^2S[;
X-Complaints-To: abuse@sover.net
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19868
Date: 2008-02-18T14:44:55-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Larry Kilgallen wrote:

> How would you write a line that had an ASCII 10 in the middle
> and get back that line that had an ASCII 10 in the middle, as
> you can with the Ada compiler I currently use ?

Does the Ada standard actually *require* end of line indications to be 
represented in the file in a way other than by using a distinguished 
character sequence? If it does not require this than it would seem like 
a standard implementation could in some cases write one line and then 
read back more than one.

It seems a little hard to believe that the standard would be worded in a 
way that would prohibit a correct implementation on POSIX systems. If it 
is, then that seems like a bug in the standard.

Peter