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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.50.87.65 with SMTP id v1mr6015292igz.0.1392543400890; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:36:40 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.140.47.43 with SMTP id l40mr8817qga.11.1392543400841; Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:36:40 -0800 (PST) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!uq10no23167125igb.0!news-out.google.com!s3ni20561qas.0!nntp.google.com!k15no21413635qaq.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 01:36:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6aca36a4-cd78-4098-a1f7-646cb37cd14d@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.43.197.131; posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.43.197.131 References: <19ac8735-7a9c-429f-a111-a1b3c4b0985b@googlegroups.com> <3872de7d-2df4-4ddb-8348-45eb03b3588e@googlegroups.com> <6aca36a4-cd78-4098-a1f7-646cb37cd14d@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Differences between Ada 83 and other revisions From: Martin Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 09:36:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Original-Bytes: 2216 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:184905 Date: 2014-02-16T01:36:40-08:00 List-Id: On Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:18:54 PM UTC, adambe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:00:00 PM UTC-8, Niklas Holsti wrote: > > > > > > So it would be safe to say that the newer versions of Ada have not > > > > enabled the creation of less reliable code. > > > > > > I would say so. You may find other people who disapprove of certain > > > language details (such as allowing "out" and "in out" parameters for > > > functions), due to reliability concerns. > > > > The one new feature that I think *could* be used to create less reliable code, if abused, is 'Unchecked_Access. > > > > -- Adam But at least it spells out that it is potentially dangerous by being called 'Unchecked", like all the other 'Unchecked" parts of the language ...very easy to find! -- Martin