From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Subject: Re: Integer division: a winner declared
Date: Thu, 20-Feb-86 23:58:10 EST [thread overview]
Date: Thu Feb 20 23:58:10 1986
Message-ID: <5032@kestrel.ARPA> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5030@kestrel.ARPA
In article <5030@kestrel.ARPA>, ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) writes:
> Considering ADA to be flawed - not in one of your cases.
I meant - at least one of the organisations quoted doesn't
consider ADA to be flawed.
> Having no intention of making it available, again false in two of
> your quoted list.
> From first hand knowledge.
To be read similarly. Sorry for the confusion.
Peter Ladkin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1986-02-21 4:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <11610@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
[not found] ` <5100003@ccvaxa>
[not found] ` <548@ism780c.UUCP>
[not found] ` <1970@peora.UUCP>
1986-02-19 10:03 ` Integer division: a winner declared Matthew P. Wiener
1986-02-20 17:38 ` Integer division semantics; Ada Stavros Macrakis
1986-02-21 18:20 ` Contractors and agencies using Ada Beth Katz
1986-02-21 18:45 ` Integer division semantics; Ada Matthew P. Wiener
1986-02-21 19:03 ` Matthew P. Wiener
1986-02-21 4:12 ` Integer division: a winner declared Peter Ladkin
1986-02-21 4:58 ` Peter Ladkin [this message]
[not found] ` <127@diablo.ARPA>
1986-02-21 8:34 ` Gene Ward Smith
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox