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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b7d3a51d0d8b6ee X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: anon@anon.org (anon) Subject: Re: Extending discriminant types Reply-To: no to spamers (No@email.given.org) References: <20081115101632.5f98c596@cube.tz.axivion.com> <20081122011825.5354d1c1@cube.tz.axivion.com> <4928ecad$0$32681$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Message-ID: <648Wk.39330$_Y1.32087@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:00:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.84.133 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1227427202 12.64.84.133 (Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:00:02 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 08:00:02 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:3732 Date: 2008-11-23T08:00:02+00:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus Actually on the 20th you stated this: quote: GNAT has -gnat83 as well, but rejects, too, because there are neither tagged nor abstract types in Ada 83. unquote: So, which post is correct, Georg? Or is it you, who is speading "false allegations"! In <4928ecad$0$32681$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>, Georg Bauhaus writes: >anon wrote: > >> Since, the use of "base" attribute (as Adam stated) >> was used in this way and legal in Ada 83 specs. Then "GNAT 2005-2008" >> should still allow this statement, if the statement "Pragma Ada_83 ;" or >> command line "-gnat83" option is use. But as someone else reported this is >> not the case. > >GNAT does handle 'Base specially when the user specifies >-gnat83 on the command line. And, this is easily demonstrated >by trying corresponding source with any of the versions of >GNAT that have been mentioned, preventing the spread of false >allegations. > >> As for GNAT 5.01 and GNAT Pro 6.01, well they were not written under the >> DOD and the RM only control. > >Huh? In DoD we trust. The rest of us is bugs.