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: 103376,2203a21a136b39cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Fortran's Equivalence
Date: 1997/04/08
Message-ID: <dewar.860536131@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 231664095
References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca> <E8385t.9zE@thomsoft.com>
 <dewar.860159911@merv> <3349165C.3B93@cae.ca>
 <1997Apr8.155111.26714@nosc.mil>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Charles says

<<     Great!  An actual example of my repeated claim that the behavior
of erroneous constructs can change from one version of a compiler to the
next.  Admittedly, from your point of view this change was an improve-
ment, but it was a change nonetheless.>>

I don't get it -- everyone knows this is true, who are you arguing with,
no one even implied the contrary! You did say that you preferred overlays
to be erroneous rather than implementation defined, but the above para
has nothing to do with that issue.