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,a5834fbba6288f2a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-17 18:46:05 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!193.213.112.26!newsfeed1.ulv.nextra.no!nextra.com!news4.ulv.nextra.no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <ho0Z8.6145$HR.85630@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <mailman.1026878522.27555.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <FQ7Z8.6125$eY6.118853@news2.ulv.nextra.no> <usn2iep6h.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <ZaeZ8.3$sR2.194@news4.ulv.nextra.no> <un0sqe73u.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <aRhZ8.62$sR2.1275@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
 <a157UXntK+J9@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Subject: Re: Creating a DLL in Ada
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <w5pZ8.207$sR2.4518@news4.ulv.nextra.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.156.195
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@nextra.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:46:04 MEST
X-Trace: news4.ulv.nextra.no 1026956764 130.67.156.195
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:46:04 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27211
Date: 2002-07-18T01:46:04+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:a157UXntK+J9@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <aRhZ8.62$sR2.1275@news4.ulv.nextra.no>,
> "Daniel Dudley" <dudley@online.no> writes:
> > "Pascal Obry" <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> > news:un0sqe73u.fsf@wanadoo.fr...
>
> >> My point was only that ACT can't be blamed for
> >> documentation badly built by volunteers :)
> >
> > A valid point, Pascal. However, ACT surely can be blamed
> > for the poor quality PS documentation, what? :-( Perhaps
> > it's a result of this wanting quality that forced the
> > creation of "unauthorized" PDF documentation.
>
> Authorize or unauthorized, the front page of the document
> should indicate the version of the software to which it
> applies.

Indeed it should, and does -- version 3.14p.

> If the user goes looking for a more recent version
> of the documentation in hopes that DLLs will be supported by
> the new version of the software, it is all to their advantage,
> even if only the documentation was enhanced in this regard.

Daniel