From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Backward compatibility between Ada 95 and Ada 83
Date: 1997/09/30
Date: 1997-09-30T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <60qnia$sh8$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 01bccd8e$68785d20$b229accf@default
James H. Robinson writes:
"I'm using an Ada 95 compiler, but my class is teaching Ada 83. How
backwardly compatible is Ada 95 with Ada 83?"
Good enough that it won't matter.
The only things you are likely to encounter are
new reserved words (6 of them)
Character now has 256, not 128 values
Numeric_Error is subsumed by Constraint_Error
String literals can sometimes be interpreted as Wide_Strings
Unless you are learning this for an existing, non migrating project,
give your educators a big kick, and tell them to teach Ada95.
There is so much more that is better in Ada95.
Dale
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-09-30 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <01bccd8e$68785d20$b229accf@default>
1997-09-30 0:00 ` Backward compatibility between Ada 95 and Ada 83 John Herro
1997-09-30 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923
1997-09-30 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1997-09-30 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough [this message]
1997-10-01 0:00 Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1997-10-01 0:00 Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-96
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox