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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8f8cea8602e61aba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Subject: Re: The Red Language
Date: 1997/09/08
Message-ID: <5uvkfc$k1n$1@news.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270591809
References: <340ED5D8.2DEF6D3@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
 <340ee253.239748688@news.mindspring.com> <dewar.873678467@merv>
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.873678467@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
><<Hey, how does Ada95 do against Steelman?  It
>might be interesting to hear in what major ways Ada95 violates
>the old requirements.)>>
>
>One obvious violation is the presence of pointers to procedures, which
>were specifically ruled out (for good reason) by Steelman! There are
>undoubtedly others, but this comes immediately to mind :-)

There was an article "rating" Ada95, C, C++, and Java against Steelman
in the latest Ada Letters (XII.4).

That was one.  Another is 3-3F (nonassignable record components).   The
third was 10F (assertions, but they point out that GNAT has this).
There was also 5 "partial" and 11 "mostly" entries.