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,f8544883f4f8ab29
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Compiler implementation of speciallized needs annexes.
Date: 1999/03/01
Message-ID: <7belqo$rl7@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 450041611
References: <36D3A1EF.E7CA2A8C@physics.BLAH.purdue.BLAH.edu>
 <7b2mpq$194$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: Netcom
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Mar 01 12:21:12 PM CST 1999
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-01T12:21:12-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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