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-Thread: 103376,103c80d8c86cee54
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.71.34.3!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Concurrency in Ada Errata in word format not Post script format
Date: 15 Jan 2006 23:22:59 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <qDbrWAHpVmj3@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <11sm6cfebhs1a97@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1137388966 22620 192.135.80.34 (16 Jan 2006
 05:22:46 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:22:46 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2499
Date: 2006-01-15T23:22:59-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <11sm6cfebhs1a97@corp.supernews.com>, "ME" <abcdefg@nonodock.net> writes:
> Does anyone know of a Word format of Concurrency in Ada errata? I have been 
> suffering with this book for years now. 

Is there reason to believe the authors of Concurrency in Ada would
choose word for their revisable format ?

Is there reason to believe the authors of Concurrency in Ada would
release their work in revisable format ?

There can be a very good reason for choosing Postscript.