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: 103376,2c708a8deef60a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Backward compatibility between Ada 95 and Ada 83
Date: 1997/09/30
Message-ID: <60qnia$sh8$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 276826121
Distribution: world
References: <01bccd8e$68785d20$b229accf@default>
X-XXMessage-ID: <B0571FE851021B17@obibicut.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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