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: 103376,160c733e92739a6a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: shochat@primenet.com (David D. Shochat) Subject: Re: ada for pc(dos an linux) Date: 1996/01/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 134430669 sender: root@primenet.com references: organization: Primenet Services for the Internet x-posted-by: ip009.lax.primenet.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-01-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dan@irvine.com (Dan Eilers) wrote: [snip] > > As far as policy goes, AJPO policy is that the period until March 1997 > is a technology transition period, where new Ada compilers can be validated > against either the Ada83 or Ada95 standard. DoD policy, expressed in > directive 3405-1, currently only allows Ada83. And NIST, the sole authority > for US Government language standards apparently removed its logo from > current Ada95 validation certificates on the grounds that the Ada95 > validation suite 2.0 is only about half complete. > > -- Dan Eilers > Dan, could you explain a bit more about what is going on with NIST and Ada 95 validation? Also, my reading of 3405.1 seems to imply that everyone should now be using Ada 95 since that is now Ada, although it is not yet desirable or even possible for everyone to use Ada 95. Thanks. -- David