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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.49.72 with SMTP id u8mr1505322qaf.3.1392329935608; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:18:55 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.221.99 with SMTP id qd3mr116929igc.6.1392329935341; Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:18:55 -0800 (PST) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.ripco.com!news.glorb.com!f11no19771637qae.1!news-out.google.com!h8ni3igy.0!nntp.google.com!c10no20985020igq.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:18:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <19ac8735-7a9c-429f-a111-a1b3c4b0985b@googlegroups.com> <3872de7d-2df4-4ddb-8348-45eb03b3588e@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <6aca36a4-cd78-4098-a1f7-646cb37cd14d@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Differences between Ada 83 and other revisions From: adambeneschan@gmail.com Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 22:18:55 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Bytes: 1894 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:184844 Date: 2014-02-13T14:18:54-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:00:00 PM UTC-8, Niklas Holsti wrote: > > So it would be safe to say that the newer versions of Ada have not > > enabled the creation of less reliable code. > > I would say so. You may find other people who disapprove of certain > language details (such as allowing "out" and "in out" parameters for > functions), due to reliability concerns. The one new feature that I think *could* be used to create less reliable code, if abused, is 'Unchecked_Access. -- Adam