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: 103376,62a76f7157243e61
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!out04b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc03.usenetserver.com!news.flashnewsgroups.com-b7.4zTQh5tI3A!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it Ada 2005 or Ada 2007?
References: <1193782578.950217.150590@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <878x5kcgeo.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
From: Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:33:15 -0400
Message-ID: <uwst31ptw.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/22.1 (windows-nt)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u2F8/gniVDkUVcAnFWGuYrV5Szg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@flashnewsgroups.com
Organization: FlashNewsgroups.com
X-Trace: 929dd472867f6e05e48ed25954
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2673
Date: 2007-10-31T07:33:15-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

> Jerry writes:
>> I have seen the "new" Ada referred to as both Ada 2005 and Ada 2007.
>> When referring to the new standard and without referring to any
>> particular implementation of it, which is correct or preferred? I sort
>> of understand that the standard wasn't agreed to until 2007 but that
>> might not be the defining event. Is there an official designation or
>> are left to our own devices to call it what we want?
>
> Formally, it is "ISO/IEC 8652:1995(E) with Corrigendum 1 and Amendment
> 1".

For a reference for these details, see
http://www.adaic.org/standards/ada05.html 

That page consistently calls the language "Ada 2005".

> Officially informally (!), it is "Ada 2005" because ARM 3.1/2 says so.
> That is the result of a majority agreement between the members of the
> working group, most of whom are compiler vendors.

Just being pedantic, I don't see that statement in ARM 3.1/2; that
paragraph doesn't exist; see
http://www.adaic.org/standards/05rm/html/RM-3-1.html 

Perhaps you meant a different paragraph?

-- 
-- Stephe