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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,85adbf2c85d62e36 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-02 15:55:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!p01!lakeread01.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Emery User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20030916 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: More Florist. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:55:24 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.98.140.119 X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net X-Trace: lakeread01 1067817320 68.98.140.119 (Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:55:20 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:55:20 EST Organization: Cox Communications Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1939 Date: 2003-11-02T18:55:24-05:00 List-Id: Jeff C, wrote: ... > Well..It is following the POSIX standard so if there is a problem it is in > the standard and (probably) not the > implementation. Does FLORIST claim to be a conforming POSIX/Ada implementation? If not, I'd strongly prefer that it not imply conformance. So either say it's "conforming" (which is clearly defined by the standard), or say that it is "patterned on" or words to that effect that make it clear that it is not claiming or implying conformance. dave