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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b7cec58b407563f3 X-Google-Thread: 107e1d,b2f2945eb9203bca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid107e1d,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsrout1.ntli.net!news-in.ntli.net!newspeer1-win.server.ntli.net!newsfe2-win.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Dr. Adrian Wrigley" Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] AWS 2.0p released User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2 (This is not a psychotic episode. It's a cleansing moment of clarity.) Message-Id: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,fr.comp.lang.ada References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:12:34 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.100.88.147 X-Complaints-To: http://www.ntlworld.com/netreport X-Trace: newsfe2-win 1087218716 81.100.88.147 (Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:11:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:11:56 GMT Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1465 fr.comp.lang.ada:267 Date: 2004-06-14T13:12:34+01:00 List-Id: On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 21:55:12 +0200, Pascal Obry wrote: > volkert@nivoba.de (Volkert) writes: > >> > We have worked very hard to make this release as stable as >> > possible. >> >> Pascal, >> >> what does this statement mean? > > Well, that the release is really stable (ready to use in real applications). > Actually I'm not sure what you do not understand :) I think the question is whether it is more like "starting out unreliable, we have had to work very hard to get any stability at all" or "Complete stability is the priority, and we have worked very hard to ensure absolutely nothing slips through"? >From the sound of the OP, you have been having difficulty getting it to hold together (the first interpretation). I fact it seems the second interpretation is more accurate. It's a subtle question of emphasis and semantics that most native English speakers would resolve by context, but still leaves room for doubt. (am I right, Volkert?) -- Adrian