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: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Is "Ada" 95 or 83? (was: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ?)
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <dewar.797259016@gnat>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100070372
references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk>
 <gauthier-2403951115540001@164.81.60.62> <D645uH.Dqr@nntpa.cb.att.com>
 <1995Mar28.115614.9511@eisner> <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
 <3lva0m$f31@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

T.E.D. says we mustn't think Ada means Ada 95 till there are validated
compilers.

Hmm! maybe we could get the C++ folks to follow that same rule :-)

One interesting effect of GNAT of course is that now there are more andd
more students to whom Ada only means Ada 95 (one of the nice things about
the academic world is that you don't get shot if you use a GASP! 
unvalidated compiler)