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: 1997/04/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 235200376 References: <333840D1.7B12@cae.ca> <3349165C.3B93@cae.ca> <1997Apr8.155111.26714@nosc.mil> <1997Apr15.163103.27481@nosc.mil> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Charles said << This meant more to me than it might to others. Often when I say that the "semantics" of an erroneous construct can change from one ver- sion of a compiler to the next I'm told that no serious compiler would do such a thing; its maintainers would know that users might have come to rely on the current behavior>> OK, so, as I noted, no one in *this* thread made a silly statement like this (that the behavior would not change from version to version). It is always confusing when you are refuting statements that have not been visibly made from things that "you are told" by persons or persons unknown who are clearly wrong :-)