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,a0224dc3d1e52f3d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Ada-G, was Re: Streams and Concurrency
Date: 1999/01/01
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9901011003090.10526-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 427769421
References: <76c3tv$acs@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>
 <76cat4$2ldc$1@news.gate.net> <76dn7b$a35@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>
 <76fe92$46c$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <76g91o$udt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <368bdf3c.3097724@news.pacbell.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 915214483 9725 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Tom Moran wrote:
>    As a person who spends a fair amount of time testing portability of
> new code, and working around the bugs and limitations of 5 different
> "Ada 95" compilers, I'd suggest that anyone thinking of locking
> themselves into a vendor-specific "special variations of existing
> languages" look very carefully before they leap.

I agree completely, but the message I get from this interesting discussion
is that vendors should agree on Ada fixes (based on customer input amongst 
other things) a bit faster than once a decade.

-- Brian