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: 103376,6afaf3884e6e29ab
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: win32ada with Object Ada
Date: 1997/06/09
Message-ID: <dewar.865869674@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 247273143
References: 
 <Pine.LNX.3.95.970603155149.11503A-100000@crusher.et.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
 <5n1nvj$rr0$1@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<Actually two compilers that are fully compliant with the LRM may compile
the same code such that only one gives an error.  For example, Object Ada
specifies System.Address as an access type, thus making NULL a legal
value.  Gnat does not, thus requiring the use of System.Null_Address
rather than NULL.>>


generally this is true, but this is not the issue in the illegalities that
were discussed here. Those were true illegalities, relating to freezing issues,
and any correct Ada 95 compiler must reject those errors. I assume that the
Object Ada version has simply fixed these errors.