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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b39dbd8effaa623 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: simple problem? Date: 1996/05/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 154662556 references: organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , John English wrote: >Umm, this guy appears to me to be talking Ada 83 (which didn't allow >instantiation of Sequential_IO with an unconstrained type), not 95. Ada 83, IMHO, *did* allow it. Perhaps some implementations didn't. Ada 95 tried to clarify, in this case, what was already intended. Maybe the Ada 93 RM didn't make it clear, and maybe some implementations don't agree, and maybe the ACVC didn't enforce it. >Just little giveaways like the "all caps" style and TEXT_IO rather >than Ada.Text_IO. I may of course be wrong, and he might in fact be >using Ada 95, in which case my answer *would* be complete rubbish, but >then he wouldn't be getting this particular error, ne c'est pas? You're probably right. Although it's hard for some to give up the ALL_CAPS style. ;-) - Bob P.S. I certainly didn't mean to offend...