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: 103376,60dd4fe7723c0ef X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: Ada Core Technologies announces GNATCOM Date: 2000/04/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 608837471 References: <2000Apr9.073658.1@eisner> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 955314311 206.170.24.5 (Sun, 09 Apr 2000 14:05:11 PDT) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 14:05:11 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > >> > C_Pass_By_Copy or Unchecked_Union ... > > What is the status of those as *official* modifications to the > > Ada standard? > > I try to keep up with this newsgroup, and I have not heard anything > about any current official venue for creating a next generation of > the standard. I'm not concerned at this point with Ada 0X, rather with AIs or whatever that trys to herd compiler vendors in the same direction. >Given statements by Robert Dewar in the past, it seems unlikely >ACT has attempted to Patent any such additions :-) or restrictive Copyrights :-) But given: > and again we did not invent this pragma! that seems safe enough!