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,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/05/04
Message-ID: <dewar.862721667@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 239232281
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <dewar.862054383@merv>
 <E99L96.LwI@world.std.com> <dewar.862097010@merv> <E99wI0.7BB@world.std.com>
 <dewar.862111056@merv> <01bc54f3$5aa9e100$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nick said

<<> Nice, but it has nothing at all to do with the issue of predefined types
> in the annex A packages. Except to say nothing at all about them, which
> could have also been achieved by saying nothing at all. This para is
> about rep clauses themselves, not on requirements for Annex A.
>
[...]

Have you been reading Lewis Carroll, Robert?>>

Sorry, I do not see why you think the para you quoted has antying to do
with the issue at hand, can you explain yourself -- I think you are
seriously confused here ...