Re: MI for Ada

[robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com]

In article <EACHUS.99Feb16110742@spectre.mitre.org>,
  eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) wrote:
> And as you are aware in Ada 83 the rule was "no
> unauthorized extensions."  In Ada 95, there must be a
> standard conforming mode.

This is highly misleading. There has been no change here
between Ada 83 and Ada 95. It was always understood and
never questioned that Ada compilers could have flags that
caused them to operate in some non-standard mode, and this
was true from the start for Ada 83. For example, nearly
all compilers had a flag for suppressing runtime checks.

The ARG discussed this a few times, and always unanimously
agreed that even the most outrageous switches were
perfectly fine as long as there was a standard conforming
mode, and the ACVC procedures have always required that the
VSR document the switches used to achieve this mode.

So Robert Eachus' implication that there has been some
shift in the Ada 95 design here is, as they would say
in the British parliament, a "terminological inexactitude".


-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own