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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,be3749d096f8436b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Suitability for small Windows projects
Date: 2000/10/21
Message-ID: <8ss9fb$6m7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 684146482
References: <8qr809$cjj@newshost.fujitsu.com.au>
 <slrn8t2cih.8d9.haering@sunhalle3.informatik.tu-muenchen.de>
 <8qrs0i$kq2@newshost.fujitsu.com.au> <8qs469$pf1@news.kvaerner.com>
 <39D1C1F3.893B61A6@maths.unine.ch> <8qtsek$j7c$2@news-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <8qvj52$1lm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009280825480.29105-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <8smc96$hs7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x64.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.240
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Oct 21 14:33:14 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-10-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8smc96$hs7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  r_c_chapman@my-deja.com wrote:
> We're thinking about it, but it's a fair way off yet.  Some
history:
> generics were broken in Ada83 to a point where they simply
couldn't
> be seriously considered for SPARK83.  In Ada95, things are
better,
> so there's some possiblility of a limited form of generic
units in
> SPARK95 - the main restriction will be, of course, on the form
> of generic formal parameters allowed.

I don't buy the above for a moment, there is no HUGE difference
between Ada 83 and Ada 95 here, given that SPARK would only
allow a limited form of generics in either environment.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.