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: 103376,47bd5b7b3b898723 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Text_IO and Ada source (was: Form feed comment for pragma Page) Date: 1996/06/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160290816 references: <4p04vi$3ui$1@mhafn.production.compuserve.com> <4pkp5k$13gs@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Norman said "But there would be a particular EBCDIC code representing the Latin-1 source-text linefeed character. The real issue is that the line-terminator would be implicit in the "logical record length" (LRECL). However, it appears to follow from RM95 2.2(2) that *both* non-tab format effectors (i.e., the EBCDIC codes representing the Latin-1 format effectors) and the end-of-record would have to be recognized as the end of a source line, so the net effect in cases such as a FF embedded in a comment would be the same as on non-EBCDIC-based systems. " What is your justification for the first sentence here. I read nothing in the RM that requires or implies that the source representation of any format effector is a "particular code", EBCDIC or otherwise. For example, a perfectly legitimate representation of form feed is some special mark in the record, or even a conventional carriage control character (i.e. a '1', remember that?) at the start of the record. The standard has NOTHING AT ALL to say about source representation. FOr examle, a quite legitimate source representation is to store the source as a tree, and indeed in one sense that is exactly what he Rational system does.