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,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't. Date: 1996/03/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144177176 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4iq71v$cvr@news4.digex.net> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <4xohpp8nzj.fsf@leibniz.enst-bretagne.fr> <4j6dod$lbn@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: ""A have a meta-reaction. While most of these GNAT-defined pragmas, restrictions, and packages are technically sound, if I were a competing Ada implementor, I would be distressed by the so-far unchallenged role of GNAT in setting de facto standards. Why aren't the other implementors demanding an immediate meeting of the URG to agree on a common set of implementation-defined items?" " Norman, I definitely agree, and we have certainly been concerned about this issue, but only recently have other vendors got seriously interetsed in this issue as well. At the most recent ARA meeting, we agreed to set up a technical group to address these issues. No doubt the URG can also be helpful, but we need to move faster than ISO can! Note of course that no vendor, including us, will agree to be bound by any liitations on providing useful feature to our customers, however, it is certainly an excellent idea for features to be common where possible, and to discuss these features widely. pragma Unchecked_Union was discussed extensively with several parties, including the design team and Intermetrics (who wanted it for their C bindings work).