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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,755f6c395ab1a8d8,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: NRC Report Date: 1996/11/08 Message-ID: <9611081542.AA07748@most>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195446506 sender: Ada programming language comments: To: team-ada@acm.org mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: There has been some criticism of the NRC report. Much of this criticism is based on a posted summary of the report. I wonder about a couple of things: How accurately does the summary reflect the full report? Did the summary come from the study group or from a reader of the report? Finally, since the summary ends with "This report will be..." some people might have thought it WAS the full report. Perhaps "The full report will be..." would be safer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------