Re: Renaming GNAT? (was Re: Ada to C convertor)

[jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <dewar.824577635@schonberg> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Jon Anthony said
> 
> "I don't understand how this is true.  Since Gnat is under FSF
> copyleft, and its sources are easily obtainable, and part of the
> _intent_ of it was that universities and others would have a readily
> available Ada compiler to do language experiments with, I believe that
> it does indeed fit this perspective.  Now clearly that is _not_ what
> will happen to the standard adhering, ACVC validated evolving versions
> of it maintained by ACT, but that seems a different point."
> 
> Yet it is true. Surely people can play with extended versions of the
> language in their own copies, and if they like distribute them, but
> at least so far, the version maintained by ACT with the FSF copyright,
> is exactly Ada 95, and NOT an extension of it. 

Let me get this straight.  It _seems_ then that you are saying that
the term "GNAT" only applies to the FSF copylefted Ada95 compiler now
maintained by ACT.  And that the sort of experimentation I mention is
just fine, but the result could not be termed/called GNAT.  Is this
right?  Or is there something I am still not getting?

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com