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: 103376,7903a7ed8de6a521
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/26
Message-ID: <dewar.825373649@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 141288969
references: <312DA0EB.4422@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <4gmdfs$mdd@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <dewar.825179042@schonberg>
 <3131BCD1.832@lfwc.lockheed.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I said

Exactly, this is a real trap in Ada 83, and my approcah should be standard
practice in Ada 83 to avoid falling into that trap, and incidentally is
Ada 83 copatible.


Of course I meant Ada 95 compatible.