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: 1108a1,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: fdb77,5f529c91be2ac930
X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public
X-Google-Thread: 104c88,ed4fe672c3eaf3c3
X-Google-Attributes: gid104c88,public
X-Google-Thread: 11232c,59ec73856b699922
X-Google-Attributes: gid11232c,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,45d66c9c5017fc7d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 112149,ed4fe672c3eaf3c3
X-Google-Attributes: gid112149,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-24 13:43:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,misc.misc,comp.lsi,comp.hardware,comp.object,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 64 bit addressing and OOP
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:23:56 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <v5l37m2v1mon29@corp.supernews.com>
References: <b3601g$1j4sk7$1@ID-139894.news.dfncis.de>
 <memo.20030222112846.64077A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
 <b37off$1j0hm1$1@ID-139894.news.dfncis.de> <3E593457.CA43516E@adaworks.com>
 <b3bc18$1jh31e$1@ID-139894.news.dfncis.de> <3E594650.E09A986D@adaworks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.java.advocacy:59253 comp.object:58144
 misc.misc:12130 comp.lsi:350 comp.hardware:21609 comp.lang.ada:34536
Date: 2003-02-24T15:23:56-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard Riehle wrote in message <3E594650.E09A986D@adaworks.com>...
>Mark Thornton wrote:
>
>> Err, but Unicode already requires (I think) 21 bits which is the
point of
>> this thread.
>
>Thanks, Mark.
>
>I am including this reply in comp.lang.ada
>
>So, will the next Ada standard include support for a 21 bit Unicode,
>or am I missing something and it already does?


Probably. See AI-285. (http://www.ada-auth.org/ais.html).

        Randy Brukardt.
        ARG Editor