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,a5834fbba6288f2a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-18 09:47:00 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: britt@acm.org (Britt Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Creating a DLL in Ada
Date: 18 Jul 2002 09:47:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5fe90c1a.0207180846.4f4671ec@posting.google.com>
References: <ho0Z8.6145$HR.85630@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <mailman.1026878522.27555.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <FQ7Z8.6125$eY6.118853@news2.ulv.nextra.no> <usn2iep6h.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <ZaeZ8.3$sR2.194@news4.ulv.nextra.no> <un0sqe73u.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <aRhZ8.62$sR2.1275@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <a157UXntK+J9@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <w5pZ8.207$sR2.4518@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.253.238.30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1027010820 18433 127.0.0.1 (18 Jul 2002 16:47:00
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jul 2002 16:47:00 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27230
Date: 2002-07-18T16:47:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no> wrote in message news:<w5pZ8.207$sR2.4518@news4.ulv.nextra.no>...
> "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
> news:a157UXntK+J9@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> > In article <aRhZ8.62$sR2.1275@news4.ulv.nextra.no>,
> > "Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no> writes:
> > > "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > > news:un0sqe73u.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
>  
> > >> My point was only that ACT can't be blamed for
> > >> documentation badly built by volunteers :)
> > >
> > > A valid point, Pascal. However, ACT surely can be blamed
> > > for the poor quality PS documentation, what? :-( Perhaps
> > > it's a result of this wanting quality that forced the
> > > creation of "unauthorized" PDF documentation.
> >
> > Authorize or unauthorized, the front page of the document
> > should indicate the version of the software to which it
> > applies.
> 
> Indeed it should, and does -- version 3.14p.
> 
> > If the user goes looking for a more recent version
> > of the documentation in hopes that DLLs will be supported by
> > the new version of the software, it is all to their advantage,
> > even if only the documentation was enhanced in this regard.
> 
> Daniel

The HTML version of the GNAT User's Guide included in the GNAT 3.14p
for Windows setup is titled "GNAT for Windows NT: User's Guide" and it
includes an additional chapter titled "Microsoft Windows Topics" that
does not appear in the GNAT User's Guide in the standalone Postscript
document set.  Unfortunately, the document version ID (Document
revision level 1.408.2.6) and timestamp (Date: 2001/05/10 16:08:26) is
the same for on both the HTML and Postscript cover pages.  I think ACT
should include the GNAT for Windows User's Guide in the standalone
Postscript documentation set (and provide PDF versions as well).

Britt