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: 1108a1,37e6dbf5e31f6da0 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: ff6c8,37e6dbf5e31f6da0 X-Google-Attributes: gidff6c8,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,37e6dbf5e31f6da0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,37e6dbf5e31f6da0 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,37e6dbf5e31f6da0 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Software Engineering News Brief Date: 1996/11/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195186364 references: <55t882$9m@news2.delphi.com> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.sw.components,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.edu Date: 1996-11-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: tmoran says " I don't believe there is any requirement to *limit* years to 1900-2099, rather there *is* a portability requirement to allow *at least* that range." Which just goes to show that it is better to read the RM than rely on what you believe: 11 subtype Year_Number is Integer range 1901 .. 2099; there is no allowed implementation dependent variation in this type declaration!