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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,84bf0ec36cf20893
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-14 22:32:37 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
Date: 14 May 2002 22:32:37 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205142132.259dcb40@posting.google.com>
References: <mr41eu4klae9knk5978o0ru89i5vjc6u2e@4ax.com>
 <abqitv$qr9$03$1@news.t-online.com>
 <5ee5b646.0205140621.7c272d61@posting.google.com>
 <abro8l$lnp$04$1@news.t-online.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1021440757 4571 127.0.0.1 (15 May 2002 05:32:37
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 May 2002 05:32:37 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24070
Date: 2002-05-15T05:32:37+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ingo Marks <adv@region-nord.de> wrote in message news:<abro8l$lnp$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> > This is a highly uninformed comment. For sure, the poster has not followed
> > his own advice (and looked at Adaed). 
> 
> Why should I? I am not interested in an Ada 95 interpreter. The LSM file 
> claims Ada/Ed to be Ada 95 standard, so the previous poster can simply take 
> a look at it and check if it is suitable for him or not. Where is the 
> problem?

No problem. It is just that

a) AdaEd is completely irrelevant
b) there is no reason to think it might be relevant

The point is that whether the implementation tecnique is compilation or
interpretation is 100% irrelevant to this discussion.