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: 103376,2a34b7ad6c6a0774
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!transit3.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Efficiency of code generated by Ada compilers
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 09:13:04 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcczkwtnvhb.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <f3c0cf89-6993-4b83-b4fe-8a920ce23a14@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vg77swroxmjfy8@garhos> <i3sl3v$1ogj$1@news.ett.com.ua>
 <op.vg8wtnzoule2fv@garhos> <op.vg8xan2hule2fv@garhos>
 <8cf0fkF60rU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1281532361 23560 192.74.137.71 (11 Aug 2010 13:12:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:12:41 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Bj332OZrYxmqmeJKhIRh+6Ty3S4=
X-Original-Bytes: 1936
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13119
Date: 2010-08-11T09:13:04-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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

> Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:
>> This is no more valid Ada (well.... this is still valid Ada 95, this
>> is just not more valid Ada 2005/2012)
>
> In the Ada 2005 RM, see section J.10 (Obsolescent Features: Specific
> Suppression of Checks).

Right.  And things in the "Obsolescent Features" annex are perfectly
good Ada, and all Ada compilers are required to support them.
These features are "obsolescing" so slowly that they will never
actually become "obsolete".  ;-)

That's my prediction, given that I've never heard anyone on the
ARG suggest that they should eventually be removed from the
standard.

- Bob