From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes.
Date: 1999/03/01
Date: 1999-03-01T12:21:12-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7belqo$rl7@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7b2mpq$194$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com
In article <7b2mpq$194$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
dewar@gnat.com wrote:
>
>In fact we decided very early on in the GNAT project that
>we would implement all the annexes. This decision was made
>even before ACT existed, and was part of the commitment of
>the GNAT project to providing a *complete* freely available
>Ada 95 system.
To paraphrase another famous line from United States politics,
"Read my lips, no new syntax"
Reusable Annexes. Now that would be a nice concept since there is
no new syntax in the Annexes. And GNAT versions are largely coded
in Ada, are they not?
Perhaps, in the spirit of the FSF, other compiler publishers
could simply incorporate the GNAT annexes into their product and
avoid the duplication associated with more implementations.
Richard Riehle
www.adaworks.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-03-01 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-24 0:00 Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes Robert T. Sagris
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1999-02-24 0:00 ` Samuel T. Harris
1999-02-25 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` JP Thornley
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-25 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-26 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle [this message]
1999-03-01 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1999-03-02 0:00 ` dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox