* Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) [not found] ` <JSA.96Feb13210125@organon.com> @ 1996-02-17 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon Anthony said "I don't understand how this is true. Since Gnat is under FSF copyleft, and its sources are easily obtainable, and part of the _intent_ of it was that universities and others would have a readily available Ada compiler to do language experiments with, I believe that it does indeed fit this perspective. Now clearly that is _not_ what will happen to the standard adhering, ACVC validated evolving versions of it maintained by ACT, but that seems a different point." Yet it is true. Surely people can play with extended versions of the language in their own copies, and if they like distribute them, but at least so far, the version maintained by ACT with the FSF copyright, is exactly Ada 95, and NOT an extension of it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4ft23a$hke@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>]
* Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) [not found] ` <4ft23a$hke@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> @ 1996-02-17 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1996-02-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Fergus asked "No? What about 'unrestricted_access and such like? Don't they constitute a distinct dialect?" The Ada 95 LRM specifically allows an implementation to add impl defined attributes (and pragmas). But GNAT does NOT have any extensions other than such impl defined features specifically allowed by the RM. To find out if your program uses impl defined attributes, turn on the features analysis switch -gnatx9, you will get a full cross reference of any use of implementation dependent attributes or pragmas. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) [not found] ` <dewar.822666437@schonberg> [not found] ` <822747617.19372@assen.demon.co.uk> @ 1996-02-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Tor Arntsen 2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1996-02-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.824577635@schonberg> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Jon Anthony said > > "I don't understand how this is true. Since Gnat is under FSF > copyleft, and its sources are easily obtainable, and part of the > _intent_ of it was that universities and others would have a readily > available Ada compiler to do language experiments with, I believe that > it does indeed fit this perspective. Now clearly that is _not_ what > will happen to the standard adhering, ACVC validated evolving versions > of it maintained by ACT, but that seems a different point." > > Yet it is true. Surely people can play with extended versions of the > language in their own copies, and if they like distribute them, but > at least so far, the version maintained by ACT with the FSF copyright, > is exactly Ada 95, and NOT an extension of it. Let me get this straight. It _seems_ then that you are saying that the term "GNAT" only applies to the FSF copylefted Ada95 compiler now maintained by ACT. And that the sort of experimentation I mention is just fine, but the result could not be termed/called GNAT. Is this right? Or is there something I am still not getting? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) [not found] ` <dewar.822666437@schonberg> [not found] ` <822747617.19372@assen.demon.co.uk> 1996-02-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Tor Arntsen 1996-02-26 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Tor Arntsen @ 1996-02-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.824161921@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >GNU Ada is potentially confusing, because GNU C is the name of a language >(it is the extended C language compiled by gcc), and there is definitely >no distinct GNU dialect of Ada. I don't agree with this. Most of us thinks of, and speaks of, GNU C as a very good ANSI C compiler. We do know that it has some extensions here and there, but that doesn't make us think that 'GNU C' is the compiler for the 'GNU C language'. Absolutely not, in my opinion. >It's OK to use GNU Ada informally, but you should be aware of this >possible confusion. The GNU C phiolosophy is that it is fine to extend >C with useful stuff. This is NOT a part of the gcc philosophy that >GNAT copies. > >Anyway, as I noted earlier, GNAT is FAR too embedded at this stage for >us to thing of changing it (and we like the name!) I don't agree with this either, actually. It may look like that for you, but you have lived within GNAT for a long time. The rest of the world have no idea of what GNAT is, and how could they ever guess it's an Ada compiler? Call it GNU Ada and they will know.. Regards, -- Tor Arntsen (tor@spacetec.no) Standard disclaimers apply. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Tor Arntsen @ 1996-02-26 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Richard A. O'Keefe @ 1996-02-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) tor@spacetec.no (Tor Arntsen) writes: >I don't agree with this. Most of us thinks of, and speaks of, GNU C as >a very good ANSI C compiler. I strongly disagree with this. There is a _language_ called GNU C, which has numerous extensions over standard C. There is a _program_ called GCC, which compiles that language (and several others). This is the first time since gcc was released that I've heard of anyone calling gcc gnu c. (If you check the gcc man page carefully, you will find that the phrase "GNU C compiler" most naturally admits the reading "compiler for the GNU C language", given that the rest of the paragraph calls the program "GNU CC". Perhaps I should stop calling it gcc and call it GNU CC.) >We do know that it has some extensions here >and there, but that doesn't make us think that 'GNU C' is the compiler >for the 'GNU C language'. But there _is_ a "GNU C" language (it has nested functions, for example, which C lacks), and gcc (or GNU CC) compiles it (amongst other languages). I think most people would (and arguably _should_) regard the "name" of a program as being the word they use to invoke it. So I use C compilers called "cc", "gcc", and "lcc", and as far as I'm concerned, these nouns are their names. If I call someone "Fred!" and he responds, then in that context Fred is his name. I do NOT invoke GNAT by typing "GNU Ada", so "GNU Ada" does not _function_ as its name. Most of the time, the name I use for GNAT is "gnatmake". >I don't agree with this either, actually. It may look like that for you, but >you have lived within GNAT for a long time. The rest of the world have no >idea of what GNAT is, and how could they ever guess it's an Ada compiler? >Call it GNU Ada and they will know.. If it's called "GNU Ada", people will think it is a distinct dialect, just as GNU C is not identical to C, GNU Pascal was not identical to ISO Pascal Extended when last I looked at it, GNU C++ didn't accept the same language as other C++ compilers (well, no two C++ compilers do, do they). There are many people to consider: 1. the people who wrote GNAT 2. the people who maintain GNAT 3. the people currently using GNAT 4. the people who would use GNAT if they GNEW about it. I find it very difficult to believe that the people in group 4 are being or will be seriously confused by the name. After all, where in the name "UNIX" or "Linux" does it say it's an operating system? -- Election time; but how to get Labor _out_ without letting Liberal _in_? Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1996-02-26 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <DLrGA0.8BM@irvine.com> [not found] ` <dewar.822666437@schonberg> [not found] ` <822747617.19372@assen.demon.co.uk> [not found] ` <dewar.822772377@schonberg> [not found] ` <4eg3op$atb@dfw.dfw.net> [not found] ` <4f8smt$cpo@stc06.ctd.ornl.gov> [not found] ` <4fd49r$sr@nms.telepost.no> [not found] ` <dewar.824161921@schonberg> [not found] ` <JSA.96Feb13210125@organon.com> 1996-02-17 0:00 ` Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor) Robert Dewar [not found] ` <4ft23a$hke@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> 1996-02-17 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1996-02-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1996-02-21 0:00 ` Tor Arntsen 1996-02-26 0:00 ` Richard A. O'Keefe
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox