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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,aba1514f4a1fc450
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.66.90.102 with SMTP id bv6mr2442551pab.34.1345608515973;
        Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.24.165 with SMTP id v5mr142572wif.1.1345608515693;
        Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 a5ni1189pbv.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!yt1no37631125wib.1!news-out.google.com!n2ni240313036win.0!nntp.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong?
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 05:08:34 +0100
Message-ID: <CC5A19D2.1BE2E%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <k0r609$4ij$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <077b12f6-1196-4b5c-bbdb-04291b1ae616@q22g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <k0rree$lkn$1@speranza.aioe.org> <CC5730C5.1BC2E%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <k0t67b$b8r$1@speranza.aioe.org> <CC585119.1BCCC%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <k0uenp$fbg$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k0vo9u$fer$1@dont-email.me>
 <589825d2-d998-456a-9c37-c8ae13e1e7bc@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>
 <a9iagtF1rqU1@mid.individual.net>
 <keb838pn40uf3pq1536e9b3dptgd57h3se@invalid.netcom.com>
 <CC5A0367.1BE19%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <0ca8e290-722c-4f9d-9324-b29469874559@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net
 QWA8GcSEDTutj06burqAvQfvTUXwrMLOK4COA9MAbnO0e7zHfKln+u3PgoOjhq6T4N
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Uc6e4uzF57tycXaAmHxhhctRgog=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.33.0.120411
Thread-Topic: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong?
Thread-Index: Ac2AG8wUSfTI6xrj5E+XThTJ+LIrqA==
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-22T05:08:34+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22/08/2012 03:42, in article
0ca8e290-722c-4f9d-9324-b29469874559@googlegroups.com, "Adam Beneschan"
<adam@irvine.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:32:55 PM UTC-7, Bill Findlay wrote:
>  
>>> At least during the AJPO period and MIL-STD/1815A, the Ada
>>> specification was NO SUBSETS and NO SUPERSETS were permitted to call
>>> themselves Ada. (This doesn't cover optional annexes, just the core
>>> language).
>> 
>> Yes.  That was enforced rigorously.  But things are different now.
>> 
>> The Restrictions pragma allows the programmer to exclude features that are
>> considered inappropriate for a particular application.  So it could be said
>> that Ada now has 2**N subsets, where N is the number of Restrictions
>> options.  I don't have an exact count, but N is of the order of 50.
> 
> That's not at all the same thing.  The first has to do with implementors
> providing a compiler that only implements a subset of the required Ada
> features, and still calling it Ada; the second has to do with the language
> providing a feature by which users can restrict the features they themselves
> use.  A compiler that handles all the features of Ada is not implementing a
> "subset" of Ada even if it supports all the Restrictions pragmas.

These are legalistic differences, not real semantic ones.

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;