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: 103376,9a586954b11ae008
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: What Happened While I Wasn't Looking?
Date: 1997/04/03
Message-ID: <dewar.860114342@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 230559598
References: <1997Apr2.202514.1843@nosc.mil> <E82sM5.Gwv@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<I don't understand how this can be a benefit.  Ada compilers are not
required to detect erroneous things (neither at compile time nor at run
time).  So how can it be beneficial (in terms of eliminating bugs) for
the RM to declare something erroneous?
>>

Furthermore, the status of overlays in Ada 83 is identical to the status
in Fortran, i.e. that officially they do not work, but in practice they
can be used successfully in some circumstances. I find Charles Sampson's
concern about the change from Ada 83 to Ada 95 here quite misplaced!