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: 103376,483a6309b2450e41
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 case statement incompatibility?
Date: 1996/08/28
Message-ID: <dewar.841248890@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 177088775
references: <4vv4bs$hb8@erlang.praxis.co.uk> <4vvmra$k3t@linus.mitre.org>
 <5007k4$164a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Norman says

"There is nothing in Ada-95 to prevent vendors who provided these signed
types with modular behavior in their Ada-83 compilers from also providing
them in their Ada-95 compilers, in addition to the modular types required
by the Ada-95 standard.  Such types are redundant in the presence of
Ada-95 modular types, but provide a path for customers to migrate their
legacy Ada-83 code to Ada 95.
"
Indeed, for example, in the VMS port of GNAT, we have added a pragma
Extend_System that allows you to add implementation specific features
to package System, and we use this feature to allow a user to put all
the standeard DEC unsigned support into system (as well as all the other
DEC system stuff).