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,ded6ba3fc5b87b66 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: First time Ada has let me down Date: 2000/10/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 685615997 References: <8FD7DEBEEsynoptikdamudderfuck@news> X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 972473063 216.44.122.34 (Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:24:23 GMT) Organization: LJK Software NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:24:23 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-10-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison wrote: > Note to new posters: Always state up front that you are using Ada 83. That seems a bit arbitrary, since he did state Ada 83 in the main question paragraph with which he ended the post. In article <8FD7DEBEEsynoptikdamudderfuck@news>, avlogue@home.com (Shifty) writes: > Luckily I found a vendor-supplied package which provided this > functionality, but I can't believe Ada (83) doesn't have native > language support for these!!! Please tell me that I am hopelessly > confused and dead wrong! Those of us programming in Ada83 measure the quality of implementations by the degree of support provided by such vendor-supplied packages. Yes, standardizing those would be a good idea. The idea that there could be improvements on Ada83 is the reason for Ada95 !!!