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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,d778a4f52acd9d43 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.68.75.170 with SMTP id d10mr27968034pbw.6.1325278494833; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 12:54:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Path: lh20ni82361pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: anon@att.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Representation clauses for base-64 encoding Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <4ef31672$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <9lgls6FticU1@mid.individual.net> <4ef34839$0$7623$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4ef3acd0$0$6642$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <9lobhaF9adU1@mid.individual.net> <4ef9aaad$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> <9lul3qFmgaU1@mid.individual.net> <9lv3nvF57cU1@mid.individual.net> Reply-To: anon@anon.org NNTP-Posting-Host: yfGBJ3OFS0App34j6yrtug.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Date: 2011-12-30T20:54:49+00:00 List-Id: With the current Ada Standard there are too many options and that called "The Killing and the Death" for any language. There should be only one option for the Ada Standard. Either you support all features or no features not even the language itself. Thou Ada Standard might include a sub-class for those compilers that do not follow the complete standard and must use the word "Sub-Ada" when referring to its compiler and libraries. And all impractical sections must be documented in detail and approved by a non-ARG sub-committee appointed by the ARG. But for the most Ada systems that too much work. An example of a "Sub-Ada" could be where Ada is implemented on a JVM. Some might say the "Machine_Code" package is impractical, because on these systems there are two assembly languages. The first being the "J-Code" used by the JVM and the second being the hardware CPU assembly which in most cases in unknown to the JVM. Even though Ada does not know the hardware the Ada system should know the "J-Code" for the Java version it was written for. But the "System.RPC" package is another story, because no Java machine support the RPC sub-system so the JVM version would have to be approved by the Ada sub-committee or no JVM Ada would exist. Unless the RPC sub-system is fully emulated for a JVM in Ada software. In , Robert A Duff writes: >Niklas Holsti writes: > >> Yes, a compiler cannot claim to support annex C (Systems Programming) >> unless it implements chapter 13 as recommended, so that all the >> "shoulds" are implemented. But this is only an argument for "probable" >> portability, since supporting annex C is optional. > >Right. > >But of course supporting the Ada standard is optional, too. ;-) >It's easy to forget that standards don't actually _require_ anybody >to do anything. So, unfortunately, the best you can be sure of is >"probable" portability. > >> Out of curiosity, what is the case for JGNAT? > >I don't know much about JGNAT. I think it doesn't support some >things that are "impossible or impractical" (see AARM-1.1.3(6)), >given the limitations of the JVM. > >- Bob