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: 103376,4c9aaf040659caf8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: (unverified) Ada mandate cancelled (Greg A would be proud)
Date: 1997/03/11
Message-ID: <dewar.858097071@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 224746240
References: <3.0.32.19970307192557.009979a0@iu.net> <dewar.857857451@merv>
 <EACHUS.97Mar10154834@spectre.mitre.org>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Eachus says

<<   There is one Catch-22 I will be glad to get rid of.  Right now on
DoD programs, the "kiss of death" for the use of Ada or even the use
of some hardware is the existance of an UNvalidated Ada compiler for
that platform.  The mandate says you can't use the unvalidated
compiler, and a waiver is difficult if not impossible to get because
there is an Ada compiler (usually with a lapsed validation).>>

I find this bogus. Robert please quote some cases where this Catch-22
applies. Very explicit examples please, otherwise this seems like FUD