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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ffd9ca0013db6a7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-10-28 04:20:05 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!xfer13.netnews.com!netnews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Redefined "=" = generic disaster?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 11:12:12 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Message-ID: <8tecab$epm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <39F13ED9.1EE@li.net> <39F1C092.87D4135E@acm.org>
 <39F1F686.26B5@li.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.240
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Oct 28 11:12:12 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x70.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.240
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:1609
Date: 2000-10-28T11:12:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <39F1F686.26B5@li.net>,
  Vincent Marciante <marciant@li.net> wrote:
> I still think that this all opens up the possibility of more
> unexpected results in Ada 95 than it did in Ada 83.

I don't see it. Of course anything can be unexpected to anyone
depending on what they know and what they expect :-)

Please post exact Ada 95 code that works (check it out first)
and does something you consider unexpected.


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