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
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry
Date: 1996/12/06
Message-ID: <dewar.849925491@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 202816962
references: <mazzanti-0512961053010001@131.114.200.115>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Franco said

"For Ada95, the numbering of "Ada Items" has clealry restarted from 1, but
it is not clear how many of the unresolved Ada 83 items would be
still applicable to Ada95  (hopefully a small number, but definitively a
number greater than zero)."

What makes you think this? Part of the design work on Ada 95 required
careful consideration of every Ada 83 AI (rememebvr that there are 
nowhere near 1500 real AI's, many of these are presentation issues,
e.g. commas in the wrong type font).

If there is an Ada 83 AI that is not considered and dealt with in quite
a deliberate manner in the Ada 95 RM, it is an oversight, and one that
I would be surprised to find ...