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,a5834fbba6288f2a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-18 12:46:52 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!128.39.3.168!uninett.no!Norway.EU.net!newsfeed1.ulv.nextra.no!nextra.com!news4.ulv.nextra.no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <ho0Z8.6145$HR.85630@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <mailman.1026878522.27555.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <FQ7Z8.6125$eY6.118853@news2.ulv.nextra.no> <usn2iep6h.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <ZaeZ8.3$sR2.194@news4.ulv.nextra.no> <un0sqe73u.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <aRhZ8.62$sR2.1275@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <a157UXntK+J9@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <w5pZ8.207$sR2.4518@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <5fe90c1a.0207180846.4f4671ec@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Creating a DLL in Ada
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <LWEZ8.448$sR2.9206@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.130.16
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 21:46:51 MEST
X-Trace: news4.ulv.nextra.no 1027021611 130.67.130.16
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:46:51 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27236
Date: 2002-07-18T19:46:51+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Britt Snodgrass" <britt@acm.org> wrote in message
news:5fe90c1a.0207180846.4f4671ec@posting.google.com...
> "Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no> wrote in message
> news:<w5pZ8.207$sR2.4518@news4.ulv.nextra.no>...
> > "Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
> > news:a157UXntK+J9@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> > > In article <aRhZ8.62$sR2.1275@news4.ulv.nextra.no>,
> > > "Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no> writes:
> > > > "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > > > news:un0sqe73u.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
> >
> > > >> My point was only that ACT can't be blamed for
> > > >> documentation badly built by volunteers :)
> > > >
> > > > A valid point, Pascal. However, ACT surely can be blamed
> > > > for the poor quality PS documentation, what? :-( Perhaps
> > > > it's a result of this wanting quality that forced the
> > > > creation of "unauthorized" PDF documentation.
> > >
> > > Authorize or unauthorized, the front page of the document
> > > should indicate the version of the software to which it
> > > applies.
> >
> > Indeed it should, and does -- version 3.14p.
> >
> > > If the user goes looking for a more recent version
> > > of the documentation in hopes that DLLs will be supported by
> > > the new version of the software, it is all to their advantage,
> > > even if only the documentation was enhanced in this regard.
> >
> > Daniel
>
> The HTML version of the GNAT User's Guide included in the
> GNAT 3.14p for Windows setup is titled "GNAT for Windows
> NT: User's Guide" and it includes an additional chapter
> titled "Microsoft Windows Topics" that does not appear in
> the GNAT User's Guide in the standalone Postscript
> document set.  Unfortunately, the document version ID
> (Document revision level 1.408.2.6) and timestamp (Date:
> 2001/05/10 16:08:26) is the same for on both the HTML and
> Postscript cover pages.  I think ACT should include the
> GNAT for Windows User's Guide in the standalone Postscript
> documentation set (and provide PDF versions as well).

I'll second that, Britt. ;-)

Daniel