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: 103376,42427d0d1bf647b1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies and Ada95 Standards Date: 1996/04/07 Message-ID: <828901918.15825@assen.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 146255404 x-nntp-posting-host: assen.demon.co.uk references: <00001a73+00002c20@msn.com> <828038680.5631@assen.demon.co.uk> <828127251.85@assen.demon.co.uk> <315FD5C9.342F@lfwc.lockheed.com> <3160EFBF.BF9@lfwc.lockheed.com> <3162B080.490F@lfwc.lockheed.com> <828648378.5095@assen.demon.co.uk> newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >John McCabe said > "I assume by point (c) that you mean compilers must not contain <..snip..> The point you make on invalid extensions re TLD seems reasonable to me. I would have to agree entirely with your arguments on how TLD could justify the implmentation of _a_ package Machine_Code in this way. > "I fear you may be biased towards this type of bug reporting by being > directly involved with the Ada language itself. How many [other] > compiler vendors are this conscientious?" >Not quite sure what this means. All Ada implementors are involved with >the Ada language. I am not the only vendor with people on various >committees (I do not say representatives here, because none of us >represent our companies in this context). Many suggestions for tests >in the past have come from vendors. I can't speak for how concientious >any vendor may or may not have been in this regard. Your response here seems to suggest that your understanding of my statement is correct. I don't think I have anything to add here (your last sentence says it all really!) <..validation status..> >Well you are free to take the "I don't really give a s**t" attitude to >anything you like, but the fact of the matter is that the validation >status report (VSR) has valuable information about any compiler, and is >often provides information that is valuable in using a compiler. I must admit I wasn't aware of that. Presuaby these reports are available from somewhere. Are they available on-line e.g. from AdaIC? I'd _now_ be interested in seeing the one for the compiler I use. Just a point, at the time the compiler was mandated I had absolutely no control over what tools, languages, or compilers I used. In addition, I had absolutely no interest in Ada. This has changed to a certain extent now in that I may be able to make decisions of this nature on any new projects I am assigned to, and since reading the articles in this newsgroup, I have started to look at Ada in a new light (especially now Ada95 is available). > Also >I wish to remind you that it was you who raised the issue of the validation >status of the compiler you are using, not me :-) Yes, but I just brought it up so we would have something to talk about :-) >P.S. do you like that indentation style better? Yes It's much better - much more obvious who said what :-) Thanks very much! Best Regards John McCabe