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: 103376,319ef0454c7765d5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ichbiah@jdi.tiac.net (Jean D. Ichbiah) Subject: Re: Why no exception hierarchy ? Date: 1995/04/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 100939362 references: <3ksv4s$f9e@news.uni-c.dk> <1995Mar28.115614.9511@eisner> <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> organization: JDI Technology, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3ls5sb$nl8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >pragma Atomic is in Ada 85, it is not found in the obsolete language defined >by the previous standard. >Seriously, we should from now on consider on this newsgroup that Ada means >Ada 95 by default. If people want to ask questions or make comments about >Ada 83 they should be careful to specify that this is what they are talking >about. Dear Robert, Since when have you become an adept of the Soviet practice of rewriting history? There is no such thing as Ada 83: it is called Ada. Moreover, look at the cover of the new standard and as far as I can read it refers to a language called Ada 95! As a Gnat vendor your zeal at burrying Ada prematurely is clearly understandable, but let us be a bottle of Dom Perignon that total lines of Ada 95 do not exceed those of Ada before 2000? Please respond if you accept the bet. We probably have hundreds of witnesses in this newsgroup. Best regards, Jean P.S. You realize this is a bet I cannot loose: in 2000 I will celebrate my 60th and Dom Perignon will be quite proper.