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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f44e8b91bd1d669d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-21 16:31:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Unusual syntax Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:16:28 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <5ee5b646.0205170201.2582c8ef@posting.google.com> <3CE55D49.70638FEE@acm.org> <5ee5b646.0205182030.45ade229@posting.google.com> <3CE812B1.492EF78E@acm.org> <3CE9B65A.BE66B61C@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1021986989 4153 136.170.200.133 (21 May 2002 13:16:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 May 2002 13:16:29 GMT 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 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24487 Date: 2002-05-21T13:16:29+00:00 List-Id: Ahhh The bureaucracy that comes with the military. :-) I really don't know what sort of "Official" status Ada80 had - except that a) nobody built any compilers to that standard (at least not any that got any sort of widespread circulation) and b) my recollection of the intent was that it was never supposed to serve as some sort of "final" standard by which people should be guided in developing compilers. The intent was that it was to be reviewed, commented on and eventually revised, so in a sense it was never a "real" standard. Clearly, for paperwork purposes, it was given a number and maybe in some bureaucratic sense it was therefore an "Official" standard - but for practical purposes it wasn't used that way. Still, its an interesting bit of history and I wish I still had a copy of it. Sadly, it became compost somewhere along the line in a fit of making space for more junk. :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message news:3CE9B65A.BE66B61C@acm.org... > > I'm no expert, but I think 1815 was a standard. That's why the revision > is called 1815A, indicating it's a revision of the standard called 1815. > If we'd stuck with the MIL-STD thing, Ada 95 would have been 1815B. If > Ada 83 had been the first standard, it would simply have been 1815, and > Ada 80 would have been a draft version of 1815. >