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: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/15
Message-ID: <dewar.837432767@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 169479900
references: <JSA.96Jul10213633@organon.com>
 	<DuDyus.I8I.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <JSA.96Jul12181302@organon.com>
 	<dewar.837226494@schonberg> <JSA.96Jul14220022@organon.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon said

   > Nope, this was not a red herring, it (the concern about backend
   reimplementation) was the major focus of the argument.

  "I agree that this was the major focus of the argument.  My claim is
   that IMO this was an irrelevant distraction and thus a red herring."

OK, that makes very clear Jon's disagreement. If you take the position
that concerns about backend reimplementation were irrelevant, then
of course you will disagree with the conclusion. For a contrary view,
note that Bevin has several times publically stated that the impact of
Ada 95 on the backend was a major factor in DEC's decision to abandon
their Ada product and not attempt to move it to Ada 95.