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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b7d3a51d0d8b6ee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 06:39:56 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Extending discriminant types
References: <20081115101632.5f98c596@cube.tz.axivion.com>
 <20081122011825.5354d1c1@cube.tz.axivion.com>
 <vF4Wk.149868$Mh5.87085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
In-Reply-To: <vF4Wk.149868$Mh5.87085@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4928ecad$0$32681$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 2008 06:39:57 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: a1b99597.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=5lWg_;S@PIJj7E:bke<5HFA9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRA^YC2XCjHcbI>EHjJZ1ZB_BKQDKiQ7h<gN:kflG:[oaXFmjT;FOaeI1J
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:3730
Date: 2008-11-23T06:39:57+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

anon wrote:

> Since, the use of "base" attribute (as Adam stated) 
> was used in this way and legal in Ada 83 specs. Then "GNAT 2005-2008" 
> should still allow this statement, if the statement "Pragma Ada_83 ;" or 
> command line "-gnat83" option is use.  But as someone else reported this is 
> not the case.

GNAT does handle 'Base specially when the user specifies
-gnat83 on the command line. And, this is easily demonstrated
by trying corresponding source with any of the versions of
GNAT that have been mentioned, preventing the spread of false
allegations.

> As for GNAT 5.01 and GNAT Pro 6.01, well they were not written under the 
> DOD and the RM only control.

Huh? In DoD we trust. The rest of us is bugs.