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,a3ca574fc2007430
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601
X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/11/12
Message-ID: <dewar.847807932@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196012719
references: <3280DA96.15FB@hso.link.com> <1996Nov6.210957.3070@ole.cdac.com>
 <EACHUS.96Nov7203951@spectre.mitre.org> <1996Nov8.183051.21638@ole.cdac.com>
 <5692dv$2t5$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime
Date: 1996-11-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Richard says

"If you ever find such a language, let me know.
I've studied a couple of hundred programming languages, from Ada to Zed,
and I've yet to find one that satisfies your rule.  For what it's worth,
no version of Pascal accepts "for i:= 1- to 1 do"; Pascal _does_ accept
"for i := -1 to 1 do" because it has only one integral type; and it looks
to _me_ as though "for i = -1 to 1 do" and "for i := -1 .. 1 do"
"should be legal", but they aren't."


Gosh, to me it looks like

  for i in 1 .. 10 do

should be legal in Pascal, but guess what, it isn't.
What a horrible language
:-) :-)