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,d778a4f52acd9d43
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.190.71 with SMTP id go7mr23428347pbc.8.1325119841080;
        Wed, 28 Dec 2011 16:50:41 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni75565pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Representation clauses for base-64 encoding
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:50:40 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcclipwcian.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <slrnjf5uol.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <4ef31672$0$6574$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <9lgls6FticU1@mid.individual.net>
 <4ef34839$0$7623$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <slrnjf6kup.1lme.lithiumcat@sigil.instinctive.eu>
 <4ef3acd0$0$6642$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <9lobhaF9adU1@mid.individual.net>
 <4ef9aaad$0$6643$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <9lul3qFmgaU1@mid.individual.net> <wccmxadbv0f.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <9lv3nvF57cU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1325119840 26216 192.74.137.71 (29 Dec 2011 00:50:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:50:40 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QKQHy+z2biCJehdTiZlSuAEfvaA=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2011-12-28T19:50:40-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:

> Yes, a compiler cannot claim to support annex C (Systems Programming)
> unless it implements chapter 13 as recommended, so that all the
> "shoulds" are implemented. But this is only an argument for "probable"
> portability, since supporting annex C is optional.

Right.

But of course supporting the Ada standard is optional, too.  ;-)
It's easy to forget that standards don't actually _require_ anybody
to do anything.  So, unfortunately, the best you can be sure of is
"probable" portability.

> Out of curiosity, what is the case for JGNAT?

I don't know much about JGNAT.  I think it doesn't support some
things that are "impossible or impractical" (see AARM-1.1.3(6)),
given the limitations of the JVM.

- Bob