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,b3edde39ad90f1b7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Representation clauses and streams
Date: 2000/01/03
Message-ID: <wcc3dsf9xrn.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 567717049
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <tgso0lg67p.fsf@mercury.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <84du8g$c67$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <tgr9g4rhmf.fsf@mercury.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <386F900C.235952C2@averstar.com> <84p1ot$c7n$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-01-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> Apparently some other compilers failed to follow the RM advice
> in the first place, which is what is giving rise to the push
> to revise the language here. 

I don't think other compilers failed to follow the RM advice.  I think
what happened is that different compilers chose different base ranges,
so even if all compilers follow the Advice, they don't all get the same
answer.  Users griped about this, which caused the ARG to get involved.

> A tricky situation ....

Indeed.

- Bob