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,e61c8636ef35379d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-11-20 17:40:15 PST
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Streams usage (was Escape Sequences in Strings)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:31:17 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Message-ID: <8vcj95$dve$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <3A17B0E2@MailAndNews.com> <3A129A89.1B69E2FE@acm.org>
 <3A13D59E.63A6F92@earthlink.net>
 <igh81t8b3hdrsc167do6qr0h1joa73c1jr@borpin.co.uk> <3A168546.89CA38F7@acm.org>
 <3A177878.AD747325@telepath.com> <3A182633.BDE82EA9@acm.org>
 <8v9lip$2dr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <rAjS5.627$aX.271957@homer.alpha.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.240
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 21 01:31:17 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x71.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.240
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!sienna.impulse.net!news.netcologne.de!stueberl.r-kom.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!grolier!btnet-peer0!btnet-peer!btnet!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:2304
Date: 2000-11-21T01:31:17+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <rAjS5.627$aX.271957@homer.alpha.net>,
  "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> Seriously, the AI in question is not (finally) approved and
> still needs more work. So I think claiming to conform to it is
> premature.

I disagree, the "more work" that Randy refers to is the usual
fiddling with language. The basic (and to me very obvious)
conclusion of how the technical issue should be resolved was
never in dispute, and as I said earlier, GNAT always took the
position (use the representation of the base type) that the
AI recommends. To me, any other choice was a clear mistake
precisely because it introduces worrisome non-portability.

Of course it will indeed be some time before all compilers
are conformant to the AI. But I never claimed otherwise.

I just wanted to reassure anyone using GNAT that no change in
the implementation is required or expected as a result of the
AI, whatever state of word-smithing it is in.

Robert Dewar


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