* Re: Ada 9X Doc v5.99
@ 1995-01-28 6:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-28 6:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
"I have never understood why the founding fathers did not throw off the
imperial system of measures"
Oh but they did, at least in part, no US motorist can buy an imperial
gallon of petrol, only a puny gallon of gas, some 4/5's of the true
imperial measure.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ADA Objects Help!
@ 1995-01-27 4:03 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-27 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mats, since there seem to be quite a few people interested in this, can you
perhaps put the PS of your thesis in an FTP area where people who are
interested in getting it can ...
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Memory overwrite?
@ 1995-01-25 21:24 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-25 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mark asks if GNAT can also find uninitialized variables, like GCC.
GNAT IS GCC! Use the GCC option, and you will get the output you want!
\x1a
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada + Multi-Byte/Wide Chars = Modern Language?
@ 1995-01-24 19:28 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-24 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ada 95 fully supports ISO 10646 = Unicode (thanks to the programming deity
in the sky for this welcome unification :-)
GNAT supports much of this, providing several different methods for
encoding wide characters, including JIS, shift-JIS, EUC, and a general
method allowing arbitrary encoding. We do not yet have Wide_Text_IO
implemented.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Run-time checking and speed
@ 1995-01-24 19:25 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-24 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Yes, Suppress and Unsuppress can be fully nested, and for example you can
suppress all checks of some kind with suppress, and then selectively
unsuppress some of them.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Gurus - which lang. for this task?
@ 1995-01-24 19:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-24 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
First of all "suffering from multi-day linking operations" is a characteristic
of an implementation not a language. Certainly it is clear that linking an
Ada program should take no more or less time thank linking an equivalent
C program, and certainly GNAT (and I would think lots of other Ada compilers)
achieve this equivalence in practice.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Run-time checking and speed
@ 1995-01-23 23:38 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-23 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike, you miss the point that in some environments it is REQUIRED to turn
off runtime checking.
Why, because runtime checking can create code that cannot be executed, and
in some verification environments coverage testing is required, so you cannot
have code and logic paths that cannot be executed.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ADA-9x done? Any good PC compilers?
@ 1995-01-21 5:31 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-21 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
Robert Eachus is wrong in thinking System.Tick has anything to do with
delays in Ada 83 (I guess he missed the ARG meeting where we discussed
this :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada.strings.bounded problems?
@ 1995-01-21 5:28 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-21 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mats says:
"So sad ! I think it is the biggest defect I know of in Ada 95."
[it is not having introduced the upwards incompatible feature of user
defined equality being compositional]
Gosh Mats, if that's the biggest defect, then Ada 95 must be in
*very* good shape!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: C programmer with Newbie question
@ 1995-01-20 16:55 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-20 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
Peter, there were all sorts of constraints in numbering annexes, including
some formal ISO rules. We discussed this at length. In particular, your
R for real time could not fly unless there were annexes A-Q :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada Objects Help!
[not found] ` <131279@cup.portal.com>
@ 1995-01-20 16:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-20 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
"How can Ada be object oriented if you always have to pass the data to the
function?"
I have a clearer version of this question
"How can Ada be object oriented if the second and third characters of its
name are not special characters?"
:-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Math Lib. for Ada? Ada for X11R6?
@ 1995-01-20 5:27 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-20 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
"It [interfacing Fortran] gets much harder when you have to deal with
packages that take Fortran routines for callbacks."
At least in GNAT, and I would hope in all Ada 95 compilers, there is
no trouble in passing Fortran routines for callbacks, or indeed passing
routines written in Ada (with pragma Convention Fortran) for this purpose.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Memory overwrite?
@ 1995-01-20 5:19 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-20 5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
In response to Mark, worrying about out of array stores in Ada 83, this
is fixed in Ada 95, where the check cannot be elided in the case he
worries about.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada.strings.bounded problems?
[not found] ` <3fja22$fab@source.asset.com>
@ 1995-01-20 5:12 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-20 5:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
"The traditional response is that a good optimizing compiler will remove
the discriminant"
Not likely, this is a VERY hard optimization, and not one that I have seen
any Ada compiler do except in VERY specific cases.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Large Integers?
[not found] ` <3fhjr1$4h8@rational.rational.com>
@ 1995-01-18 23:22 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-18 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
Kent, do you know which compilers supported 64-bit integers, it is my
impression that yes indeed, it is true that very few 83 compilers have
such support. Of course no quarrel with your observation that this is not
a REQUIRED limitation.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ADA-9x done? Any good PC compilers?
[not found] ` <EACHUS.95Jan17120531@spectre.mitre.org>
@ 1995-01-18 23:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-18 23:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
I was talking about when a delay expires, this has nothing to do with the
required preemption by a higher priority task!
(responding to Eachus' note on my note about infinite delays)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada.strings.bounded problems?
[not found] ` <Mats.Weber-1701951908250001@mlma11.matrix.ch>
@ 1995-01-18 17:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-18 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
I think probably the best thing if you want to follow this idea for
bounded strings is to make them a limited type and live with the
inconvenience of no initialization.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada.strings.bounded problems?
[not found] ` <D2J8H0.DMu@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
@ 1995-01-18 5:01 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-18 5:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mars worries whether the use of unbounded strings is incompatible with
programs that run for ever.
Not at all, or more accurately, no more or less incomaptible than any use
of the heap. You have to make sure that you don't have memory leaks in
your implementation, and that you have sufficient heap memory to avoid
fragmentatino problems, but other than that ...
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: C++ Envy
[not found] ` <3fcjp5$b0v@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>
@ 1995-01-16 18:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-16 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
Yes, I typed CFM for CM, sorry, configuration management.
If you don't precompile headers, then I don't see how a CM system easily
stops you using macros to subvert headers that are simply included (that's
what starting this particular thread as I remember).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Strange behaviour with protected objects
[not found] <"Jwic53.0.fY6.3v06l"@autan>
@ 1995-01-16 3:25 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-16 3:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Note that the designation 2.01w is a temporary designation that covers
the wavefront version. It is not in general the case that 2.01w = 2.01w,
so telling someone you are using 2.01w does not mean much!
Pretty soon 2.01 will be out (a few days we would hope), at which time
there will be a stable version to run tests against!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Large Integers?
@ 1995-01-11 2:39 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-11 2:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
Note that you can also find arbitrary precision integer arithmetic and
ratoinal arithmetic packages in the GNAT sources, in files uintp and
urealp respectively.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Task Scheduling in Applications Written in Ada
@ 1995-01-09 16:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-09 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Dar, it would be most interesting to know in more detail what "scheduling
algorithms" you have in mind for accept, select etc.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT NT & Ada.Direct_IO
@ 1995-01-09 6:10 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-09 6:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
Note incidentally that it is generally "not permitted" to recompile
children of Ada, Interfaces and System, in accordance with the permission
in the RM.
This restriction can be bypassed by the use of the -gnatg option, but then
you must follow the GNAT style restrictions (documented in the body of
the module style.adb)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Programming Libraries in Ada
@ 1995-01-06 20:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-06 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
Kai, please at least copy questions on GNAT to gnat-report, since they will
be seen by people who can answer them, in particular, if you do that, the
person who wrote gnatbl will see it, although the easiest way to answer
the quetion of what gnatbl does in detail is to look at the source.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Avionic Proximity Warning
@ 1995-01-04 18:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-04 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
"A two-voter vote [on which way to fly to avoid collision"
no problem, I execute that algorithm on the street frequently:
let me go to the right, oh, you want to go to the right, ok I'll go to
the left, oh, you changed your mind too, never mind, I'll go to the right
after all, oh ....
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: FORTRAN Translation to Ada
@ 1995-01-04 1:13 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-04 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
One obvious place to look is the GCC Fortran compiler
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Language Lawyers help on rep_specs
1995-01-03 18:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
@ 1995-01-03 18:07 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-03 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
Incidentally, I hereby declare that since we are now in 1995, that when
I say Ada, I mean Ada 95 by default, and I will specifically say Ada 83
if that is what I mean, should I for some reason need to refer to obsolete
languages :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Language Lawyers help on rep_specs
@ 1995-01-03 18:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-03 18:07 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-03 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ted says that Integer (x'First) is not static, and quotes something
about functions, but there is no function call involved here. Integer is
a static conversion, not a function call, and the expression
Integer (x'First) is most definitely static assuming x is a static subtype.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Language Lawyers help on rep_specs
@ 1995-01-03 15:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-03 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
You mention in your message comparing "two vendors Ada 95 compilers". Since
no vendor has an Ada 95 compiler yet, this can't be literally the case,
so we must assume you are dealing with two prereleases of partial
implementations.
The rep clause (not spec please!) is perfectly valid, and conversions are
static in Ada 95 (but not in Ada 83).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT not 'getting' CR or LF?
@ 1995-01-02 4:42 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1995-01-02 4:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
Get will certainly NOT see CR/LF etc, that is its spec.
For now, until Get_Immediate is implemented, the best thing
is simply to write an interface to the appropriate C routine getchar or
whatever.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Marketing Ada
@ 1994-12-18 15:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-18 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
If the "C hacker culture is a turn off to women", maybe we should hire
more women as programmers :-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: PL/1 vs PL/I (Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?)
@ 1994-12-18 13:47 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-18 13:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
I think it is wrong to say that PL/I was called this because of lack of
confidence. In fact it was more like the "one" in
A-1 Autobody Repair Inc.
i.e. the "we're number one" of programming languages
the original title in all the papers was NPL (new programming language).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Reaching traditional engineering, was: Array mappings
@ 1994-12-18 1:34 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-18 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
I assume you are aware of the Cray/Ada effort which was certainly aimed
at least partly at their Fortran community.
As for FOrtran engineers wondering why Ada sales people had not knocked
on their door -- that's easy, none of the Ada companies could have BEGUN
to afford this level of marketing effort!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Question about IO on Unix-machines
@ 1994-12-17 17:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-17 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
George, feel free to "bother" the New York group about GNAT anytime you
like :-)
Indeed Get_Immediate is not implemented, it is high up on our list.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: In search of Set/Get Variable reference tool
@ 1994-12-17 17:43 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-17 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
This information is obtainable from the GNAT compiler cross-referencer
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Addressing functions
@ 1994-12-17 17:27 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-17 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
Art Evans asks if Ada 83 requires support of pragma Interface to Ada. THe
answer is clearly NO, in fact Ada 83 does not require that you support
pragma Interface for any language.
This is one of several respects in which the code example from Bob Eachus
may be considered illegal by an Ada 83 compiler.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT-2.00 for FreeBSD 1.1.5, NetBSD and BSDI386 available
@ 1994-12-17 15:08 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-17 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
We are also starting a contrib directory at nyu, specifically for software
that is GNAT compatible, so by all means let us know where it is too.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Tri-Ada CD ROM Gnat for DOS
@ 1994-12-17 1:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-17 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
Isaac, how about asking gnat-report instead of relying on some mysterious
internet source :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Marketing Ada
@ 1994-12-16 14:54 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-16 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
This sure is a peculiar thread (the one about macho programming!) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Marketing Ada: Is the Sky Falling?
@ 1994-12-14 20:34 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-14 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
I don't see the different mangling schemes as a significant problem for
Ada binding to C++, yes it is a problem, but relatively minor.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Marketing Ada: Is the Sky Falling?
@ 1994-12-14 13:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-14 13:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
In response to Richard Pattis' comment on C++, I certainly feel that
it makes sense for Ada implementations to have very good interfaces
to C++ so that C++ bindings can be used with little or no effort.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: PM bindings for OS/2 gnat?
@ 1994-12-12 4:57 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-12 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
We definitely plan to switch GNAT to EMX, but it is not at the top of
our priority list. The original decision to use the native compiler was
partly just a matter of choosing one of two possibilities, and partly
motivated by licensing problems with the EMX library at the time.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Free Ada compiler for PC wanted
@ 1994-12-12 4:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-12 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
Oliver, do you really mean an 8086 based PC, this would be a truly historical
piece of junk!
If you are talking about a regular PC (i.e. 386 or higher), get GNAT
from cs.nyu.edu
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada Run-Time Royalties - Opinions?
@ 1994-12-12 4:29 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-12 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Presumably runtime licesnse fees should mean a lower cost for the compiler
itself, so in answering the question about such fees, this should be taken
into account.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-10 13:50 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-10 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Michael, I think you are confused about ISUB, and barking up a wrong tree
to say that Ada 9X is superior to PL/1 here. ISUB is a much more powerful
feature than pragma Convention Fortran in Ada 9X, and subsumes it.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Robert Dewar's horrible posts
@ 1994-12-10 13:43 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-10 13:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
Actually my news reader will quote stuff fine, but I hate wading through
quotes! Sometimes I don't give enough context, so that can be a problem
the other way, especially for people who are only occasional readers,
but the quote to information ratio in many CLA messages asymptotically
approaches infinity :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: iSUB in PL/I (was: Re: Why don't large <you-know-whats> use <you-know what>?)
@ 1994-12-10 1:36 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-10 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
Two ancient books in the same place!!!
My goodness we will have to send round the firemen :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Anybody else having problems with GNAT 2 and OS2 Warp?
@ 1994-12-09 21:56 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-09 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
this certainly is strange, gnabl seems to be working fine for us under WARP
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Running GNAT from the VB3 Shell Command
@ 1994-12-09 15:36 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-09 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
Peter (and those reading his post). Please be aware that the script you
posted is obsolete with respect to GNAT version 2.00, because in GNAT version
2.00, gnatbl automatically does the coff2exe step (something we should have
done in the first place, to avoid this common confusion, but sometimes
the obvious is not as obvious as it should be.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT-Problem '+'-operator with Count
@ 1994-12-09 15:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-09 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
it is either a bug in GNAT or a bug in your program, and it is impossible
to tell which without the full sources. If you want help from the GNAT
group, please send full sources to gnat-report@cs.nyu.edu!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT Port To WIN or WINNT?
@ 1994-12-09 4:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-09 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
ports are available at NYU for DOS/Windows, NT, OS/2 and many other
environments as well.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT problem: Hello World
@ 1994-12-08 20:05 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-08 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
alwys send messages to gnat-report for help on GNAT. Proibably the error
her is the failure to run cofftoexe (see DJPP documentation). The requirement
for doing this is eliminated in versiuon 2.00 (where GNATBL does this
automatically).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-08 10:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-08 10:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-08 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
Keith, the array conversion case is really not a special one. In general
an array conversion may involve a massive and possibly complex copy, and
most compilers will just generate a loop to do the copy, which handles
all possible cases, including the swapping of indices.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
1994-12-08 10:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
@ 1994-12-08 10:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-08 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
Interesting that PL/1 creates an image of an ISUB'ed array passed to Fortran.
As far as I can see, this is not at all required by the language, it is just
a bit of bad implementation, isn't that right?
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-08 4:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-08 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
As far as I know ISUB was always in PL/1, it may not have been in the
G subset.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-08 4:10 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-08 4:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike, I think you misunderstand ISUB, it does exactly what you want and
was largely intended for that purpose. Yes of course it transposes the
array, that's what swapping subscripts does (logically) to an array!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Elaboration order [was: cross linking packages]
@ 1994-12-06 16:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-06 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
John's analysis is right, and of course I was talking about specs mutually
with'ing one another, which is illegal, and typically caught at compile time.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT (v1.83 and v2.0) and Booch Components
@ 1994-12-06 14:16 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-06 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
Dan (Coyne), if you run into GNAT bugs, please send them to us at
gnat-report@cs following the directions in the documentation!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Running GNAT from the VB3 Shell Command
@ 1994-12-05 23:03 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-05 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
Lots of people have got the DOS version of GNAT to work. I don't know
what problem Lance Kibblewhite
had, as far as I remember he did not contact us.
remember if you have problems, send mail to gnat-report@cs.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-05 22:59 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-05 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike, have you REALLY met engineers who walked away from PL/1 because of
the array subscripting order "problem". If so their behavior is peculiar
given the fact that PL/1 allows the specification of subscripting regimes
in full generality using ISUB (swapping indices is a trivial application).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-05 22:57 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-05 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
if you are writing PL/1, you use ISUB to swap indices of arrays automatically
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: HELP: GNAT for HP 9000/755.
@ 1994-12-03 2:57 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-03 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
It is hopeless to try to build GNAT 1.83 from 1.79. THe only thing we
guarantee is that version N+1 can be built from version N. HP binaries
for 1.83 are available. The release after 1.83 is 2.00, the current
release, and 2.00 can be built from 1.83.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: s-algol
@ 1994-12-02 14:09 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-02 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
anyone who has trouble adjusting from one language to another and finds that
an impediment to entering the commercial marketplace shouldn't (i.e
should not enter that market place), since they are clearly unqualified.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-02 5:29 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-02 5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
People are furiously cross-posting this thread, and many of the messages
are quite inappropriate outside comp.lang.ada. Please be careful,
inappropriate cross-posting quite understandably antagonizes people.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-12-02 5:25 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-12-02 5:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
Note that one significant reason that PL/1 failed was the very poor initial
implementations that IBM produced early on, leading for example to the
rather disastrous reversal of the Sears commitment and their reversion
to COBOL, which had nothing to do with the DoD or procurement as I remember!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: What is OO (Was Why don't large companies use Ada?)
@ 1994-11-30 23:26 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-30 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
the notion that inheritance is impossible in Ada 83 is bogus, obviously
you can program inheritance using nested components, it's not as pretty,
and you have to mess to get dispatching, but it's certainly doable.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT
@ 1994-11-30 23:01 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-30 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
eager waiting should be soon rewarded, the new version of GNAT, called
version 2.00 should be released tomorrow if all stays on schedule, and
certainly within a couple of days. This will be the SunOS version, the
others should follow closely behind.
Then on to 2.01 ...
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: cross linking packages
@ 1994-11-29 22:07 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-29 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
"The GNAT compiler stumbles into a circular ..."
How about instead
"The GNAT compiler correctly diagnoses an illegal circular dependency"
This is definitely wrong, you have to put both types in the same
package if they have this sort of mutual dependence.
(and now we can rerun the long dialog on mutually recursive types :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Help Wanted
@ 1994-11-28 15:42 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-28 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
Well at least this chap is above board in his attempt to use the internet
to do his homework assignments for him :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
1994-11-28 14:00 22% ` Robert Dewar
@ 1994-11-28 14:02 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-28 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
Add to Mike's list of "military" inventions: Internet itself, which presumably
most participants in this newsgroup find useful :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?
@ 1994-11-28 14:00 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-28 14:02 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-28 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
You can add to Mike's list of "military
"
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: PART/pthreads for GNAT under Linux
@ 1994-11-23 21:56 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-23 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tasking is not currently available for GNAT running on Linux.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada Portability... NOT!
@ 1994-11-22 3:53 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-22 3:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Whaddya think?"
I think it's an abuse of the semantics of pragma Pack :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries
@ 1994-11-22 3:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-22 3:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
Object COBOL is not, as far as I know, an ISO standard. The new COBOL
standard, including the OO stuff, is not expected to become an ISO
standard until 1977 at the earliest according to the latest post
in comp.lang.cobol.
Ada is indeed the first object oriented langauge to be standarized by ISO
(any counter claims???)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT for Mac?
@ 1994-11-19 7:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-19 7:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
"GNAT, why is there not a port for the MAC?"
because no one has done one! There is no technical reason why GCC and GNAT
cannot be ported to the Mac. Apple did a version 1 port of GCC, but did not
keep it up. I believe Cygnus may be working on a port of GCC version 2.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Systemless use of 'Address.
@ 1994-11-16 23:50 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-16 23:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Why on earth should unchecked_access require system? it has nothing to do
with entities declared in system, and its semantics is not system
dependent.
Sure it can be used to construct erroneous programs whose behavior is
implementation dependent, but hey, you can do that with uninitialized
variables, and you don't have to with system to create those!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT-Problem Set_Line(), Set_Col()
@ 1994-11-16 13:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-16 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
Ah that triggers the memory, yes indeed, we discussed the problem of files
being limited to integer size lines, which on 16-bit machines (e.g. compilers
for DOS) would be an intolerable restriction.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT-Problem Set_Line(), Set_Col()
@ 1994-11-12 15:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-12 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
Andreas asks about Set_Col not working with a variable.
First, such problems should be addressed to gnat-report
second, we need sources that duplicate the problem or we can't do anything
with such reports
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: POSIX and symbolic links ????
@ 1994-11-06 21:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-06 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
In a way it is a shame if a program *can* detect a symbolic link, because
then it means that symbolic links would not be transparent, and the great
attraction of this facility is precisely the transparency.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada replacements for DOS I/O
@ 1994-11-05 5:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-05 5:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
I don't see where chapter 14 is wriotten to require proper interleaving
of characters ???
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Flags in Ada?
@ 1994-11-03 23:08 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-03 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
We have lots of implementation dependent attributes and pragmas, and yes
it is true that they compromise protability. We are planning to have
them controlled by the -pedantic GCC switch which would make them
unavailable, thus answering Mats (quite legitimate) concern.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada replacements for DOS I/O
@ 1994-11-03 23:05 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-03 23:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
The limitation in DOS on simultaneous I/O has nothing to do with device
drivers, it comes from the fact that the Int 21h handler is single
threaded!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Another One Bites the Dust!
@ 1994-11-03 11:36 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-03 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
well the "bloody obvious" sometimes escapes people, and apparently continues
to do so:
NO AMOUNT OF TESTING CAN GUARANTEE MAINTAINABILITY
Indeed, I trust that this *is* BO!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: DOS GNAT 1.83 returns 'unknown file type' on compilation
@ 1994-11-03 11:34 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-03 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
Roger, I hope you sent your installation question to gnat-report@cs.
It is *particularly* the case that those on the GNAT team most likely
to be able to answer installation questions do not read CLA!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Type System.ADDRESS
@ 1994-11-03 11:31 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-03 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
" Any assignments to type System.Address require a static expression."
clearly an unwarrented and incorrect assumption. I am surprised that a
compiler can validate with this mistake.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Flags in Ada?
@ 1994-11-03 11:26 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-11-03 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
Regarding the choice of our name (Img) [and norman's nice suggestion of mage]
the reason we chose Img was because we thought there was a rule in Ada
requiring attribute names to be abbrevaitions (Succ, Pred, Min, Max, ...)
:-) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada replacements for DOS I/O
@ 1994-10-31 13:21 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-31 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
Of course simultaneous text_io from separate tasks to the same file (e.g.
standard output) is pretty hard to define anyway (at what level does the
output get interleaved - lines, text_io calls, characters, pixels?)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Initialization Params for Controlled Types
@ 1994-10-27 23:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-27 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
to pass parameters to initialization routines, use discriminants, works
nicely, that's how we do storage pools in GNAT.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Flags in Ada?
@ 1994-10-27 23:00 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-27 23:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
I think it is quite wrong for a compiler to initialize or otherwwise pester
values with address clauses as a result of calling type support subprorams.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Flags in Ada?
@ 1994-10-26 22:32 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-26 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
well to me Dave's approach seems overkill
I really don't see the objection to a packed record. OK, some implementations
are deficient and don't implement this feature properly, but that's not
Ada's fault -- insist on compilers that have this feature if you need it,
it's required by the language definition.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Lines of documentation per LOC
@ 1994-10-26 22:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-26 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
what possible bizarre thinking leads to the conclusion that COBOL requires
ten times the density of comments as Ada for simple sequential
algorithms ...
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Generic Child Packages
@ 1994-10-26 0:05 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-26 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
instantiation of library units works fine in GNAT, so I don't quite
know what that comment was about. they are of course separate
compilation units, and so must be submitted on their own in a file
if you are not using gnatchop.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consultant]
@ 1994-10-25 23:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-25 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
"making the unit a child allows it to reference the facilities ..
without using a with clause"
true, so what, this doesn't mean that it compiles faster (in fact child
units tend to increase compile time if you are not careful, because they
do implicit with's that you might not always need).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consult
@ 1994-10-25 22:23 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-25 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
one million lines of C++ compiling in 6 hours on a 486.
That sounds reasonable, GNAT will generally compile about the same speed
as g++. On my thinkpad, a 75MHz 486 with no 2nd-level cache, it takes
about 50 minutes to compile the GNAT sources, which are about 150,000
lines of Ada.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Paradise-3.4 ported to GNAT/Ada9X?
@ 1994-10-24 4:50 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-24 4:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Laurence, please be sure to send GNAT trouble reports to
gnat-report@cs.nyu.edu
(I post this as a general reminder!!!)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: In-Circuit Emulators with Ada support
@ 1994-10-20 5:41 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-20 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
contact Alsys, they have a line of cross compilers with emulator support
for various emulators.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
@ 1994-10-19 15:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-19 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
Stephen, believe me, the *great* majority of Lisp programmers would feel
lost without a debugger. There may be some singular exceptions (in all the
hundreds of lisp programmers I have met, I never found one, but of course
no universal quantification is likely to be accurate when it is done over
people :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ADA compiler on Mac?
@ 1994-10-19 0:16 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-19 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
"There will be NO commercial Ada compiler for the Mac"
I don't quite see how you conclude this from talking to one vendor! You
can certainly talk with certainty about the present, but I would hesitate
a little to talk with such certainty about the future!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: C-Ada Import of struct's -- Help
@ 1994-10-18 19:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-18 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
"Also remember that a C string must be null terminated"
be careful not to confuse here, there is no such requirement in C.
Certain C library routines (but by no means all) require strings to
be null terminated, and string constants are null terminated, but there
is no general requirement in C that corresponds to this quote.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ARPA still undermining Ada
@ 1994-10-18 16:39 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-18 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
Actually Mike, I think a "full-bore" version of Ada-Ed could have appeared
significantly before 1989 if the support had been there for such an
effort.
I first started talking about the idea of a GCC-like effort for Ada quite
a bit earlier than 1989!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ARPA still undermining Ada
@ 1994-10-18 16:35 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-18 16:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
[languages like] C, Lisp and Unix
|
error: type mismatch, expected language, found operating system!
Richard Stallman writes primarily in GNU C, although clearly he works with
Lisp too in the EMACS context!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code)
@ 1994-10-14 22:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-14 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
Well Henry, of course anyone can play the part of "completely bamboozled by
yet another incomprehensible Ada rule from those language lawyers", but
*really* the rule on limited types is quite easy to understand, and the
design and motivation behind the rule seems quite clear.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Where's Waldo? Where's Ada?
@ 1994-10-14 21:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-14 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
"But why talk about a language with no future ...."
Why indeed, if you feel that way Greg, I have a great idea: follow your
own good advice!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT for Windows NT
@ 1994-10-14 18:28 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-14 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
There will be a port to NT available on cs.nyu.edu sometime net week if all
goes smoothly. This has been worked on by Doug Rupp, who did the DOS port,
and will be one of the standard NYU supported ports. The next release of
GCC will include full support for NT as well.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: HELP
@ 1994-10-14 13:21 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-14 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
Time for another reminder. It is useless to ask questions about features
like this that are implementation dependent unless you tell us what
compiler you are using, what version, what operating system, what
machine etc.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
@ 1994-10-14 0:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-14 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matt, exactly what *is* the *right thing*?
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994
@ 1994-10-13 19:55 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-13 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
I also vote in favor of retaining 9X!
By the way, how many people know that Ada 83 should really be called Ada 87
(I guess there is some country out there in the New World that thinks the
standardization happened in 1993, but I see no reason for the world
community to pay any attention to local affairs of that kind).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Interfacing Ada to Unix/execl var. arg. list function?
@ 1994-10-13 18:46 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-13 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Indeed, Mark, the junk allocation of a null string constant is just that
junk! Just goes to show how you can be lead down the garden path :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code)
@ 1994-10-13 12:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-13 12:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
I might add to Magus' comment about the limited type issue being solved in
Ada 9X is that this is not some accident, but rather an important consequence
of a quite deliberate review of the status of limited objects in Ada, no
doubt informed by useful contributions from Henry and others :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ARPA still undermining Ada
@ 1994-10-11 19:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-11 19:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
absolutely, the base technology I was referring to was in these particular
cases g++ (the GNU version of c++). I know of a couple efforts using g++
where I think that GNAT would at least have been considered if it had been
around!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Easily-Read C++?
[not found] ` <124377@cup.portal.com>
@ 1994-10-11 18:43 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-11 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
There are to my mind three justifications for comments:
Saying WHY you are doing something, and WHY you did it that way
Saying WHY you did NOT do something, and WHY you did NOT
Describing WHAT the code does, but at a higher level of abstraction
than the code itself.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Easily-Read C++?
@ 1994-10-05 22:02 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-05 22:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
Right, and comments also slow down you reading because they add unnecessary
characters .. I certainly know far too many programmers who think that
way ...
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT pragma IMPORT and type conversions
@ 1994-10-05 21:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-05 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
please send questions to gnat-report, we will bne happy to help you out.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
@ 1994-10-05 13:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-05 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
OK, so Denver was C++, but let's avoid the mistake of assuming that the
problems were due to the language, until we know more.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Syntax question
@ 1994-10-05 11:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-05 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
Put_On (Who => Jack, What => "the box", Where => On ("the table"));
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Verdix VADS ADA or GNU ADA on an SGI...
@ 1994-10-05 11:35 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-05 11:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
Fred, not only has GNAT been ported to Irix, but SGI has signed a contract
with ACT under which GNAT will be validated under ACVC 2.0 early next year.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: ClearCase and Ada -- Config. Management
@ 1994-10-05 1:42 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-05 1:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
There is an active project underway at SGI to interface Clearcase to
GNAT, and this combination will, as I understand it, be the basis of
the SGI GNAT/based Ada product. Conctact Wes Embry at SGI for further
details.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
@ 1994-10-04 14:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-04 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
GA logic is known to have some unusual rules, does GA arithmetic also
have unusual rules and not consider 10% to be greater than 5% :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?]
@ 1994-10-04 14:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-04 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
My goodness, it sure is suprising for someone to ask what the difference
between correctness and reliability is.
They are only vaguely related, there are reliable incorrect programs,
and unrealiable correct programs.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: New to ada.
@ 1994-10-03 5:03 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-03 5:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
All GNAT compilers support integers of 64 bits, and to a somewhat limited
extent (basically arithmetic only) up to 128 bits using the so far
undocumented :-( entity Standard'Huge_Integer. Of course use of the
latter is not likely to be portable to other compilers, it is really
intended for internal library use.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: line 1(1) ilegal character
@ 1994-10-03 4:46 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-03 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
Sorry Norm, you are quite right, I should have clarified, we are talking
about NT for x86. We also have done some work on NT for ALpha, but that
will not be available for a while. We are currently not looking at all
at NT for other machines (such as the power PC ??? :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: line 1(1) ilegal character
@ 1994-10-03 4:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-03 4:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
Sorry the Sun SOlaris 2.0 version is NOT yet available for FTP from cs.nyu.edu,
we hope to have it packaged up, along with the Solaris 386 version sometime
this coming week.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Types with physical dimension
@ 1994-10-03 4:40 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-03 4:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tuck takes me to task for not including the "given infinite resources :-)
from his original message.
But of course the point is that infinite resources for implementation are
totally besides the point, I have no concern for implementors in this
discussion, only for readers, and unless infinite resources also gives
readers infinite brain power, it won't help :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Types with physical dimension
@ 1994-10-03 4:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-10-03 4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
Peter, your meters * meters not being allowed to give meters can be
done in a perfectly straightforward manner using abstract subprograms
in Ada 9X, why isn't that solution good enough for you?
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: generic call backs
@ 1994-09-28 21:29 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-28 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
Are you really saying that Dec Ada allows two package specs to with one
another? surely not, this is a clearly illegal program, which any Ada
compiler should be expected to detect and disallow.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Where's Ada OCompiler?!
@ 1994-09-28 19:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-28 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
fpt gnat from cs.nyu.edu. there are versions for Linux, OS/2 and DOS
you are better off with the Linux or OS/2 versions if possible, but
the DOS version does work (it uses the DJPP extender which you will
have to obtain separately).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Types with physical dimension
@ 1994-09-28 13:59 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-28 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
"What do Ada programmers do to guard against dimensional errors"
Probably not much, because in practice, at least in my experience, such
errors are rare, although they are an obvious target for theoretical
discussions.
Using private types is of course the appropriate way to do things in
Ada 83. In Ada 9X, abstract operations can be used to eliminate unwanted
operations.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: LOC counting standards, anyone?
@ 1994-09-26 13:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-26 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
Another LOC thread!
I guess this should really be in the FAQ
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Is Ada being used on this?
@ 1994-09-26 12:56 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-26 12:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
Doesn't Alsys also have a compiler for the IBM mainframes (they certainly
used to). In practice all three compilers for IBM mainframes found that
the total number of Ada mainframe customers was limited, so the shelves
that these compilers sit on are pretty dusty!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Free Software using AdaEd (Announcement)
@ 1994-09-23 20:12 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-23 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
NYU no longer supports Ada/Ed, this support is being done (very ably with
all sorts of nice goodies added) by Mike Feldman, so you should contact him
regarding Ada/Ed.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* GNAT for Sun Solaris 2.3
@ 1994-09-23 20:11 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-23 20:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
Someone sent us a message this morning concerning a successfully completed
port of GNAT to Solaris 2.3, which is of course of great interest to a lot
of people including us. Unfortuantely due to a local comms glitch, this
message got lost, so please retransmit the message, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Student views on Ada
[not found] <INFO-ADA%94092110295932@VM1.NODAK.EDU>
@ 1994-09-22 14:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-22 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
Marin, front panel lights are for sissies! The first time I programmed
an Incoterm terminal, I had to enter a boot loader from the keyboard
one hex digit at a time, completely blind with no feedback of any kind
at all. It took 600 keypresses to enter it. Now that's REAL programming :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Vendor bashing and pushing Ada....and an ad from SGI.
[not found] ` <35mpre$1fb2@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
@ 1994-09-22 13:53 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-22 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
Right, for us fireworks is associated with the bad guys
(do they teach about Guy Fawkes in the US?) :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Eiffel for DoD development?
@ 1994-09-20 17:18 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-20 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wayne, your idea that the mandate is restricted to embedded combat systems
is indeed hopelessly out of date, and YES, business systems are also covered
by the mandate (and the usual possible exceptions to the mandate).
And also, it isn't a matter of DoD changing its policy, the mandate is a
matter of law.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Vendor bashing and pushing Ada....and an ad from SGI.
@ 1994-09-20 2:19 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <35mpre$1fb2@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-20 2:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
Dave, I agree with essentially everything you say.
P.S. those ain't fireworks between Mike and me, them's merely
animated discussions :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: DEC Ada for Alpha Computers
@ 1994-09-16 1:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-16 1:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
We will be making a binary release of Alpha GNAT (OSF1) available on the
NYU FTP site sometime next week.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Portable way to read/write from a binary file?
@ 1994-09-15 17:08 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-15 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
There is a set of C/Unix/ANSIC routines (some intersection) that is VERY
portable, as portable as anything else. The GNU porting guide (perhaps Richard
can give a better reference) has details on what can typically be counted on.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT 1.8? for OS/2 (was Re: GNAT 1.82 for Linux)
@ 1994-09-15 13:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-15 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
The delay in 1.82 OS/2 version is a hopefully one time glitch related to
the new version of GCC. At this stage we will go straight to a 1.83
release, and hope to have them all out.
P.S. As usual, I remind that questions like this should ALSO be directed
to gnat-report!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: GNAT 1.82 for Linux
@ 1994-09-15 13:39 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-15 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
In general we will do our best to echo any versions of GNAT that we know
about. It is a good idea to send messages to gnat-report@cs.nyu.edu,
as well as posting to CLA, if you have a new port that we should put up!
And this is a good opporunity to again thank those who are generating
these additional ports.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Vendor bashing? Sort of.
@ 1994-09-15 13:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-15 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike Ryer points out that the Ada mandate perhaps encouraged too many
basic technologies to be developed, and guesses that with no mandate,
there might have been a smaller more reasonable number. I am afraid
that number might well have been zero (consider as an example Algol-68 or
many other languages designed since then).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Portable way to read/write from a binary file?
@ 1994-09-14 3:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-14 3:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
sequential_io instantiated for a byte or character type may work, but is
not guaranteed, and may well be gruseomely slow.
best get is just to use pragma interface and use the appropriate unix
routines directly, whjy not>
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Ada9X Features
@ 1994-09-13 20:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-13 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
Mike, you are wrong about Fortran and conformant arrays, Fortran does
NOT have this feature, at least not in anything like the form of ISO
Pascal. Arrays in Fortran are passed by address only, and bounds information
is not passed (note I am talking up through 77 here, who knows what they
have wrought in 90 -- well probbaly some reader of this group does :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: CAUTION: Network Police patrolling c.l.a
@ 1994-09-13 15:41 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-13 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
John could you elaborate on your highly mysterious message, or was
it just meant to be provocative? :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: KUDOS and hats off to Rational !!!!!!!!
@ 1994-09-13 5:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-13 5:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
Dave, are you aware of Chris Anderson's updated picture of Ada (rather
smartly but not *too* modernly dressed).
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: TRI-Ada '94 advance program
@ 1994-09-11 1:50 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-11 1:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
Oops, very sorry for broadcasting by mistake, it's a mistake I seldom make
and I realized as soon as my finger left the keyboard, but too late!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: TRI-Ada '94 advance program
@ 1994-09-11 1:49 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-11 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
I am surprised that the titles are taken from the preliminary submissions
and not the final papers. No big deal, but you have had the final papers
in hand for quite some time now!
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Multiple compilation-units (was: Re: GWU/ADA Interface)
@ 1994-09-09 1:46 22% ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1994-09-09 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
John, you have a misconception, the time of compilation plays no role whatsoever
in the GNAT system. The time stamps are the time stamps of the sources.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Meridian and Ada (not ADA)
@ 1993-06-06 23:21 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1993-06-06 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
Sam, do you in fact know that your algorithm for computing E was
stable under Brown rule semantics?
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: what languages Ada 9X compilers are being written in
@ 1993-05-28 6:37 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1993-05-28 6:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
With respect to the idea of using an enumeration type and 'VAL to read and
parse keywords, it's cute, but no serious compiler would use such a technique
since it is likely to be seriously inefficient, and any gains in simplicity
are probably illusion in the context of a complete lexical scanner.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* Re: Passing procedures as parameters to procedures.
@ 1993-05-05 17:39 22% Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert Dewar @ 1993-05-05 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
Now I've seen it all:
"Of course you can do this in Ada, just use package machine code to construct
the code that you want to execute."
Hmmm! why bother wih Ada/9X, just require Ada/83 compilers to implement
package machine code and we can do anything we like :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 22%]
* ADA, Windows NT and Real-Time (was GNAT R/T Annex and Win95)
@ 1996-04-20 0:00 37% ` Brian K. Catlin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Brian K. Catlin @ 1996-04-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: dewar
Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote:
>
> Robert Dewar <dewar@CS.NYU.EDU> writes:
> >
> >Ada 95 does not require run-till-blocked semantics unless the RT annex
> >is supported fully. Not all OS's can support the real time annex, and
> >clearly GNAT on such a system does not support the annex (this is
> >assuming tasks are mapped to threads). On NT, you can map to the
> >real time threads, and all is well, but I don't know if this applies
> >to Win95. Anyway, Greg, you are making undocumented assjmptions here!
> >
> Here's an interesting question which we've been thinking about
> around here a lot:
>
> Do you consider Windows NT capable of being a "realtime" operating
> system? (It doesn't seem to be advertised as such.... yet.)
>
A couple of years ago, I wrote a paper on using Windows NT for real-time systems
(no, I can't send it to anyone - See the Microsoft Developer Network CDROM, where
Microsoft "rewrote" my paper as "Real-Time Systems and Windows NT"). I made
several measurements with a logic analyzer and some custom drivers and kernel-mode
software, and found that NT is quite good for soft and even firm real-time systems.
Interrupt latency (time from interrupt to starting Interrupt Service Routine) was
typically less than 10 microseconds.
The reason Microsoft won't publicly state that Windows NT can be used for
real-time systems is two-fold: too much liability, and PC hardware varies too much.
If you are thinking of using NT for real-time work, you must carefully pick your
platform, and then make your own measurements on its performance. Contrary to what
most people believe, PC hardware varies greatly (in some cases 5X for the same
processor clock rate !). NOTE: The granularity of the timer service on PC (Intel)
platforms is 10 milliseconds (ancient PC architecture standard).
To build a real-time system with a small latency window (less than 1 millisecond)
would require that you write your system as an NT device driver (you may also want
to get a programmable timer board for fine granularity timers). But if your
latency window is larger, then writing it in user-mode is fine.
-Brian
--
Brian Catlin, Sannas Consulting (310) 798-8930
Contracting to Lockheed Martin Real-3D (407) 356-0637
Windows NT Internals and Device Driver Consulting
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 37%]
* RE: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
[not found] <20010504153453.63BD7F289F@nile.gnat.com>
2001-05-04 16:56 45% ` [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released David Botton
@ 2001-05-07 7:21 39% ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. @ 2001-05-07 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: comp.lang.ada, David, Robert Dewar Ph.D.
From: Bob Leif
To: Robert Dewar, David Bottom et al.
Robert Dewar wrote:
"The only people who are affected by this policy are non-customers who want
to build proprietary software, or those who want to build tools and
libraries
for such parties, and they have never been on our radar screen."
I can certainly sympathize with your position. Since ACT is a for profit
corporation, I can understand why you do not wish to provide charity for
other profit making ventures.
I believe that what you are doing is the expected result of the economic
model being employed by ACT. This model has produced a two tier pricing
strategy: too high and zero. I also believe that the well-deserved great
success of ACT is in large part the result of technical superiority and
dedication to the use of Ada.
I still believe that in the long run, a significant part of the Ada
community could make a large amount of money by going beyond the outdated
Free Software philosophy and pursuing an effective approach to assist
startups. I have described this and created a first draft of a license (see
references below). Ada technology including ASIS has the unique capacity to
create a rear loaded licensing scheme which includes competitive forces.
This is an ideal condition for capitalizing on a unique software technology.
In short, many of us could make substantial amounts of money by producing
commercial products that work.
R. C. Leif, �SIGAda �98, Workshop: How do We Expedite the Commercial Use of
Ada?.� Ada letters XIX, No 1 pp. 28-39 (1999).
R. C. Leif, �Ada Developers Cooperative License (Draft) Version 0.3�, Ada
letters XIX, No 1 pp. 97-107 (1999).
-----Original Message-----
From: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org
[mailto:comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org]On Behalf Of dewar@gnat.com
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:35 AM
To: David@Botton.com; comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Cc: dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
<<Will packages like XML\Ada that are under the new ACT policy be available
for purchase or under a very low price minimal support contract that are
reasonable for small time developers?
>>
No, we are not in this kind of business at all
<<(The guys at RR Software must be loving this new policy :-)
>>
They aren't a force in the Ada market at all at this stage, and they sell
all their stuff under proprietary licenses anyway.
The only people who are affected by this policy are non-customers who want
to build proprietary software, or those who want to build tools and
libraries
for such parties, and they have never been on our radar screen.
The only comunities we are interested in helping are our supported customers
and those developing free software products for use in entirely free
software
activities.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 39%]
* Re: general comment on CLA
@ 1997-09-21 0:00 40% ` Samuel Tardieu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Samuel Tardieu @ 1997-09-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
Robert> I have investigated, and as far as I know, no newsreader has
Robert> this capability. I have on my list to hack one so it does,
Robert> but goodness knows when I get around to that.
Gnus (see http://www.gnus.org/), the (IMHO) best newsreader (and also
mailreader) so far can do this very easily and this is even a FAQ.
For people who could be interested in Gnus, it is a software running
under (X)Emacs written by Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen (lmi@gnus.org) which
is very powerful. Since it runs under Emacs, it is available on almost
every Unix platforms and under Windows NT.
I couldn't recommend another news software since Gnus has unique
features, such as: (some may be incorporated in other newsreaders, but
probably not all of them)
- adaptive scoring: if you want, Gnus can keep track of what words
and combination of words you seem to be interested in. This way,
it will increase the score of the threads containing these words;
when you enter the group, the messages which are probably of
highest interest to you are rpesented first
- various backends: Gnus can read news and mail using NNTP, spool,
Unix mail file, MH files, POP, IMAP, ... Your mails can be sorted
into different groups (that have different priorities) based on
the subject, the sender, the recipient, the body, ... Mails are
shown just as news posts are, that is threaded, with priorities,
with score and kill files, ...
- some really useful backends such as the nnweb one: I can create a
group which will consist into *any* article archived by Dejanews
or Altavista for example containing the "Ada" word in the subject
field. Gnus will make a HTTP connection to the search engine and
will build an ephemeral group containing all the headers. When you
ask for an article, it will get it from the same source and
present it to you
- the current development version (called Quassia Gnus) contains a
new "agent" which allows off-line mail and news reading and
posting. When you're plugged in, Gnus downloads the new mails and
news posts and sends the one it has queued for you when you were
off-line
- fully integrated MIME support using TM. If you get a picture by
mail and are running XEmacs, then the picture will be presented in
your regular mail buffer if you are running under X
It would take too much time and space to describe all the great Gnus
features. It is really worth a try. And it is... free software :)
Gnus is part of the recent Emacs and XEmacs releases. GNUS (the former
newsreader which has inspired Gnus) could only read news, so make sure
you are running a pretty recent (X)Emacs.
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@ada.eu.org
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 40%]
* Re: Gnat Free ?
@ 1998-10-22 0:00 40% Van Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Van Snyder @ 1998-10-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dewar
I just downloaded gnat-3.10p-i386-linux-bin from ftp.cs.nyu.edu. I installed
it in /opt/gnat, and sourced env-vals. It won't link any of the examples
because RedHat's path to some object files
(/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.7.2.3/crtbegin.o) is different from what
gnat expects. I couldn't find a discussion of what environment variable
(if any) to set to point to the C libraries.
Can you send it to me?
Also I've seen mention of a FAQ about using gnat in general and maybe 3.10p
specifically under RedHat Linux. I looked at
ftp:rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-group/comp.lang.ada but it's empty. Where's
the FAQ list?
--
What fraction of Americans believe | Van Snyder
Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? | vsnyder@math.jpl.nasa.gov
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 40%]
* Re: C vs Ada code quality
@ 1997-04-26 0:00 40% ` Valentin Bonnard
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Valentin Bonnard @ 1997-04-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> Someone asked me, but I lost the email address, because it bounced, the
> following (so I am not sure who asked)
Me, Valentin Bonnard, bonnardv@pratique.fr, and it shouldn't bounce
(I have checked the from field was ok in the message I sent).
> Ok this is a pretty small problem, but this is an example which
> can be part of 'distributed fat' (many small overheads which
> end-up slowing the program).
[...]
> Also, I understand that it may be difficult to compare different
> compilers using different optimising methods.
>
> Any reasons why Ada could be faster (in theory, no real numbers
> required) then C or C++ when all checks are off ? ;-)
> >>
>
>
>
> A couple of important points here
>
> C IS NOT THE SAME LANGUAGE AS C++ !
>
> This confusion is an amazingly common one. I made a statement about C,
> but the response assumes I was talking about C++, false!
I know that ! In fact this is about Ada vs The Rest of the Universe,
that is, C and C++ ;-)
If you want, I can even tell you a list of incompatibillity betwen C
to C++ (all from memory).
> However, the example here is bogus. The contstructor/destructor mechanism
> in C++ is entirely analogous to the controlled type facility in Ada 95.
I'm not a specialist of Ada, but it seem to me that the analogy
is imcomplete since C++ rely on overloading (compile time)
and Ada on overiding (run time).
> There is nothing in Ada 95 that says that the tag is stored as part of
> the value -- note that in formal RM terms, the tag is NOT part of the
> value, and if you start thinking of it, even informally, as part of
> the value, you will find the RM confusing (for example, an assignment
> copies the value, but it does not copy the tag).
Ok, ok, like the dynamic type of an object in C++ (ie the
vtable pointer - no, this word, vtable, is only there to
annoy you).
> An implementation of destructors and constructors in C++ may or may not
> add overhead to stored objects. An implementation of controlled types
> in Ada 95 may or may not add overhead to stored objects. In any case
> you are in the business of comparing implementations, not languages.
No no no, I am *not* comparing a particular implementation, nor
purely a std (the C and C++ std don't say anything about
performance, I assume the Ada std doesn't either).
We are talking about performance in general; for example in C,
malloced data is slower than auto variable because free-store
is slow and the stack goes fast; of course, there isn't
anything in the C std about the fact that there will be a
stack at run-time. You could even design a C interpretor
where stack is not faster than malloc (if your interpretor
still check the entire program for erroneous constructs
at compile-time it can be conformant).
_Seriously_ destructors and constructors won't add any overhead
in C++ whereas virtual functions will; and in my understanding
of Ada 95 ctor and dtor (the 'controled' functions) are virtual
(= dynamic dispatch) thus the overhead.
> <<Any reasons why Ada could be faster (in theory, no real numbers
> required) then C or C++ when all checks are off ? ;-)>>
>
> Absolutely, consider the aliasing problem, in C, we write
>
> *q = 1;
Real arguments ! That's exacly what I asked for.
> and if q is a *int, then without very hard analysis
'very hard' is correct (one would say impossible)
> that in any case can
> never be entirely complete, we have to assume that any int values that
> are temporarily in registers may be destroyed.
Typically i counter (in for (i=a; i<b; i++)) aren't aliased and
stay in register (otherwise we wouldn't be able to transform
loops (for example loop unrolling)).
> There are many other cases
> in which the "excessive" freedom of C pointers degrade the generated code.
Any example ?
if (sizeof (int) == sizeof (long))
{
long l = 2;
int *p = reinterpret_cast<int*> (&l);
*p = 1;
cout << l;
is this what you mean by 'excessive freedom' ?
A compiler doesn't have to handle that and can put l in
register and happily print 2 (rule to C++ programmers:
remember that reinterpret_cast is nearly always unportable).
> Now this does not mean that an Ada compiler *will* do a better job, but
> it means it could.
Ok
But is it different in Ada ? Does the 'aliased' keyword really
help ? Does this keyword serve any purpose (the compiler can
look at the source to see if you are taking accesses to a
variable directly) ? Is it like the register keyword in C (ie
the semantic of a register variable is the same but you can't
take its address) ?
Thank you for your reply.
--
Valentin Bonnard
mailto:bonnardv@pratique.fr
http://www.pratique.fr/~bonnardv (Informations sur le C++ en Francais)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 40%]
* Re: ADA compiler on Mac?
@ 1994-10-19 13:12 41% ` Arthur Evans Jr
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Arthur Evans Jr @ 1994-10-19 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: evans, dewar
In article <3816bn$n23@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu
(Robert Dewar) wrote:
> I would also suggest that people who want Ada on the MAC also make
> sure that Apple knows about it. After all, consider Art's threat to
> move to another platform, that doesn't mean much to Rational, indeed
> perhaps it would be convenient for them if he switches platforms, but
> it sure means something to Apple. THe more people who let Apple know
> they need Ada, the better.
Yes, good idea! But, how best to do this? Apple's such a big
organization that it's hard to see how to influence it.
Apple, like most hardware vendors, produces little of the software that
runs on the Mac. Now they even seem to be getting out of software
development, as MPW seems not to be moving towards PowerPC. I think
that Apple is perfectly happy to let CodeWarrior from Metrowerks take
over this segment of the market. So, it seems to me that the best
leverage for us is to push on MetroWerks to provide Ada support. They
support C, C++ and Pascal; why not Ada 94 too?
If you think MPW is the way to go, push on APDA, the part of Apple that
sells products to software developers. I called them and asked about
Ada support; they never heard of it. Or push on Symantec, which sells
several products for C, C++ and Pascal.
Other suggestions?
Art Evans
Arthur Evans Jr, PhD Phone: 412-963-0839
Ada Consulting FAX: 412-963-0927
461 Fairview Road
Pittsburgh PA 15238-1933
evans@evans.pgh.pa.us
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 41%]
* Re: Simple Case Study in Types. Chords.
@ 1999-12-06 0:00 41% ` David W. Glessner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: David W. Glessner @ 1999-12-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> In article <829qci$ctj$1@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
> Richard D Riehle <laoXhai@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > the violin family is the ability to play the subtle difference
> > between, say, an G Sharp and an A Flat.
>
> That's misleading, it implies that there are still absolute
> values for G sharp and A flat, but the whole point of course
> is that these values vary depending on what key you are playing
> in, so it is not nearly as simple as that!
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
I think Richard's point was that, except for equal temperament,
there is a limitation in using only 12 tones in a scale;
namely, you can't differentiate between, say, a sharped fifth
and a flatted sixth. We normally think that G-sharp and A-flat
are the same, but "it ain't necessarily so."
Check out pages like
http://www.globetrotter.net/gt/usagers/roule/accord.htm
and http://www.rev.net/people/aloe/music/temperament.html
for more information.
Is anyone aware of any freely available Ada packages that can be
used to mess around with a sound card on a Win98 or Linux/Intel PC?
--
David
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 41%]
* Re: Printing Enum Variable Re: Linux World
@ 1999-03-05 0:00 41% ` David Botton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: David Botton @ 1999-03-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dewar
The author, Hans Marqvardsen, you were responding to just happened to
mention my name, since he has an article on CONIO on my site. I wouldn't
get involved with a thread like this unless I was dragged in!
> (David, this was probably before your time,
> but Ada/Ed was an executable specification that ran perhaps
> 6-7 decimal orders of magnitude slower than a production
> compiler).
I am well aware of Ada/Ed :) I have been developing software
professionally for the last 14 years, although not always in Ada.
> 2) COM files must be buildable on NT :-)
Like I said, I got dragged in to this.
I only "feel" (I don't have proof, nor perspective on the market to
validate my "feelings") that this would be an important feature for
future customers of Ada compilers. It certainly has nothing to do with
compiler validation.
> The point is that NONE of the above issues are even vaguely
> validation issues.
Yup.
> Robert Dewar
Peace brother.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 41%]
* Re: DOS ALSYS ADA and DOS=HIGH
@ 1994-09-08 13:45 42% Rick Ballard
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Rick Ballard @ 1994-09-08 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dewar
On 2 Sep 1994 11:17:42 -0400,
Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>I would be interested in knowing if you had originally contacted Alsys
>support on this question. It is the sort of thing that I would expect
>them to be able to provide quick help with no hassle.
>
My 6 volumes of documentation do not include the 1-800 support number. I
finally got an email reply providing an email address for an apparent
support person at ALSYS, who was very helpful. I now have the 1-800 number,
but have not yet had occasion to try it.
So, I actually did not contact ALSYS first. I assumed they read CLA, since
I saw a note from thier legal department on the newsgroup earlier.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Rick Ballard | Email: ballard@atl.sofkin.ca|
| Software Kinetics Ltd. | Voice: 902-427-7196 (CFFS) |
| 201 Brownlow Ave | |
| Nova Scotia, Canada B3B 1W2 | |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 42%]
* Ada used to develop Medical Analytical Systems
@ 1996-04-04 0:00 43% Phil Snarski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Phil Snarski @ 1996-04-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dewar
The developer is Tegimenta, their product is high percision analytical
systems used in hospitals and laboratories, to perform in-vitro
diagnostics. The application is 220,000 lines of code, developed on the
HP 9000/ series 400 and 700 running under UNIX. Alsys development
environment and Cadre Teamwork is used by Tegimenta engineers. Have you
heard of this project and if so where can I get more info. on the
requirment specifications used to develop this applictaion? I am also
trying to find out how much of the application was written in Ada?
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 43%]
* Re: Ada on MVS
@ 1998-12-21 0:00 43% ` Pascal Sartoretti
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Pascal Sartoretti @ 1998-12-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dewar
dewar@gnat.com wrote:
> There is currently no Ada 95 compiler for MVS. Probably the
> easiest path would be a GNAT port, since there is a gcc
> available for MVS, but this would not be a trivial port,
> and in particular specialized work would be needed to get
> the tasking and tools working.
There seems to be in fact two possibilities for a GNAT port to OS/390
(the new correct name today of MVS, sorry for the confusion):
1. A port to OS/390 itself.
2. A port to "OS/390 UNIX System Services" (see
http://www2.s390.ibm.com/oe/index.html). It seems to be an Unix layer
added on top of OS/390.
The second solution should hopefully be easier than the first one. Which
one would you qualify as "non trivial"?
Pascal
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 43%]
* Re: Garbage colletion
@ 1999-11-04 0:00 44% ` Didier Utheza
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Didier Utheza @ 1999-11-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Oberon for Linux is using a garbage collector developed in C. The people
that created the compiler just interfaced the GC code to the Oberon
compiler. The code is avalaible to the public, the biggest problem with
Ada would be to reimplement the GC in native code in the logic of the
compiler, but regarding stability, this GC has a good rating!
Greeting.
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article <slrn81qgvs.mm.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>,
> lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) wrote:
> > After learning Ada without GC most programmers learned to deal
> > without it and have some problems to solve. So there is really
> > no need for GC ;-)
>
> Well we agree more than you think here. I think if someone did
> a general GC for GNAT, there would be lots of people interested
> in it, and after all for many people, since GNAT is on pretty
> much all machines, they don't mind not being portable to
> non-GNAT compilers, so even if only GNAT did it, it would still
> get a lot of use.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 44%]
* Re: C vs Ada code quality
@ 1997-05-01 0:00 44% Valentin Bonnard
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Valentin Bonnard @ 1997-05-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> <<I'm not a specialist of Ada, but it seem to me that the analogy
> is imcomplete since C++ rely on overloading (compile time)
> and Ada on overiding (run time).>>
>
> Right, you are not a specialist in Ada, and your guesses are wrong. I will
> say this again, quite clearly this time I hope: The controlled types in
> Ada are exactly equivalent to the destructors in C++.
I don't understand how this can be.
> They involve
> dispatching only when it would also be neessary in C++. I don't know what
> leads to your misconceptions here, but they are misconceptions.
The fact that I believe that :
- tagged types can be used polymorphically thus have the vtable
pointer even if they aren't use polymorphically
- functions on tagged type are 'virtual', that is, they are
called based on the dynamic type
> Probably you are confusing the formal description with the implementation.
> The fact that controlled types in Ada are derived from controlled does
> not mean you have to implement them any differently from C++.
Yes I assume they are implemented the same:
class Controled {
public:
Controled ();
// I don't how to write operator= here
virtual ~Controled () = 0
{ } // if this syntax is allowed in C++, I'm not sure
};
This means that there is a runtime penatly in general for
class derived from Controled (very localised and pretty
small actually).
> <<No no no, I am *not* comparing a particular implementation>>
>
> yes,yes,yes you *are* comparing a particular implementation. You just don't
> realize what the distinction is between what is required in the semantics
> and what a typical implementation uses to provide these semantics.
I am not; you are off base (or you want me to believe that).
Can you for example tell me an implementation which doesn't use
a vtable ? (Of course details of the representation of the vtable
can change a little.) Perhaps you know at special debugging
implementation which doesn't use the vtable, but I'm talking
about real compilers, not interpretors.
> In both Ada and C++, finalization (destructors) are defined on individual
> types, and have to be called at the right time. End of story, no significant
> difference! Now you may wonder why in practice C++ implementations have
> avoided the use of dynamic lists for finalization, and Ada implementations
> have often used them. The answer is simple. Once you have to deal with
> exceptions the dynamic list has real advantages -- the C++ world is
> working through these problems now -- for example, see the discussions
> with respect to g++ and exeptions, where recently someone seriously
> suggested the possibility of going to lists for handling destructors.
EH should be done with global walkback table; only the most
basic implementation register the objects (the first
implementation of EH in the first release that support it).
Modern EH doesn't slow down code that doesn't throw (or
should I write raise, since we are in c.l.a ?); the other
method, singnificatly easier to implement is that all
object register and de-register all the time; this has
an awfull abstraction penalty.
(Assuming exceptions are exceptionnals, which is true
in real code in C++, but it is in Ada ?)
> <<But is it different in Ada ? Does the 'aliased' keyword really
> help ? Does this keyword serve any purpose (the compiler can
> look at the source to see if you are taking accesses to a
> variable directly) ? Is it like the register keyword in C (ie
> the semantic of a register variable is the same but you can't
> take its address) ?>>
>
> Of course not! You are forgetting separate compilation -- the same problem
> of course arises in C. Yes, you can sometimes tell for local variables
> (e.g. in the absence of subunits), but in C and C++ global variables
> have to be assumed to be aliased, and this is not the case in Ada.
Ok, but for more flexible interfaces, shouldn't you declare
everything aliased ?
Is Ada lower level than C/C++ in this respect (C++
programmers consider that the fact a variable is
aliased is a low level detail) ? (While Ada
operates at a clearly higher level than C/C++ wrt arg
passing (IN/OUT vs T, T&, const T&, T*, const T* types).)
--
Valentin Bonnard
mailto:bonnardv@pratique.fr
http://www.pratique.fr/~bonnardv (Informations sur le C++ en Francais)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 44%]
* Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter
@ 1997-04-07 0:00 45% ` Arthur Schwarz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Arthur Schwarz @ 1997-04-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Keith says
>
> <<(I *like* nasty test cases)>>
>
> The trouble with nasty test cases is that they can sometimes result in
> implementors wasting huge amounts of time getting things right that are
> of no possible concern to users. The old ACVC suite was full of such
> things, and it is still quite often the case that we make a change
> and it affects none of our user programs in our regression suite, but
> it causes an obscure bug in some ACVC test. Equally, it is often the
> case that a change blows away huge numbers of user tests, but the
> ACVC hums merrily on with no errors.
>
> Anecdotally (we really should collect data on this, we have the raw data),
> we have the impression that the Ada 95 tests tend to track user programs
> more closely. They are certainly much less full of "nasty test cases".
(Anecdotally): One program that I wrote (Fortran IV/66) broke the
compiler.
I was told by my manager that my program 'stressed' it (the compiler).
And
at that time and since I have wondered why! If the language permits a
construct
and the compiler doesn't accept it, or what's worse, the generated code
doesn't
perform the operation correctly, then the compiler is "broke", not the
construct
and not the language. I would then say that a "nasty test case" is just
another
language construct which must be accepted by the compiler. It's only
nasty when
the compiler can not process it correctly. The same goes for 'obscure',
'seldom
used', and of course, 'of no possible use to users'. To my jaundiced eye
this all
seems to be an excuse to direct effort at 'big payoff' items, the ones
that seem
to be most likely of use. The problem is that the devil is in the
details, and it
is just those other, legal, small payoff items which cause great labor
for the
implementor to debug; transfering the cost of the compiler from
developer to user.
Your other comment that the ACVC test does not catch all errors is valid
but I think
not very meaningful. The complexity of language and compiler and
computer and
operating system and ... conspire to make exhaustive testing too
exhaustive. If
this is accepted as an accurate statement, it would seem unlikely that
any test
suite, except for very small 'languages', could ever be exhaustive
enough to catch
all possible compiler errors.
And this is not to attempt to derate ACT or your own efforts. Only to
say that
IMO the issue is not meaningful in that failing to pass a "nasty test
case" means
that the language feature tested is not useable and the compiler
erroneous.
art
My own opinions are often my own, seldom my companies.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 45%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
[not found] <20010504153453.63BD7F289F@nile.gnat.com>
@ 2001-05-04 16:56 45% ` David Botton
2001-05-07 7:21 39% ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: David Botton @ 2001-05-04 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: comp.lang.ada; +Cc: dewar
> The only comunities we are interested in helping are our supported
customers
> and those developing free software products for use in entirely free
software
> activities.
I hope that if you should see (in my opinion, realize) in the future that
making these sort of libraries available in a less restrivtive lic. will
help to garner more interest in Ada and that can only be good for ACT's
business in the future that you will consider changing the lic.
In principle I agree with you, I only wish that Ada was such a force in the
programming world that the GMGPL for anything but the GNAT runtime would not
be (in my opinion) needed.
Either way I hope ACT continues to both use "real" open source licenses and
distribute its sources as it has up until now.
David Botton
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 45%]
* Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95
@ 1999-04-29 0:00 45% ` Geert Bosch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Geert Bosch @ 1999-04-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
If I remember correctly, "not" is defined as the Base-1 complement
of the value. So "not 4" in a modulo 13 type would be 8.
I'm not positive that this is right though, but it is the
only reasonable definition I can think of...
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Now, *without* going to the Ada RM, let's see if we can
> remember exactly what's going on with the etc here. Hands
> up those who remember how NOT works on non-binary modular
> types (hint: the above quote is wrong wrt NOT :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 45%]
* Re: Does memory leak?
@ 1995-03-27 14:01 45% ` Theodore Dennison
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Theodore Dennison @ 1995-03-27 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dewar
Perhaps I'm missing something here...what exactly is wrong with using
UNCHECKED_DEALLOCATION?
I mean, if you don't deallocate what you allocate, your program will
leak memory no matter what language it is written in. This isn't an Ada
issue, it's an issue of sloppy coding.
T.E.D.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 45%]
* RE: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
@ 2001-05-07 15:53 46% dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: dewar @ 2001-05-07 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David, comp.lang.ada, dewar, rleif
<<I still believe that in the long run, a significant part of the Ada
community could make a large amount of money by going beyond the outdated
Free Software philosophy and pursuing an effective approach to assist
startups. I have described this and created a first draft of a license (see
references below). Ada technology including ASIS has the unique capacity to
create a rear loaded licensing scheme which includes competitive forces.
This is an ideal condition for capitalizing on a unique software technology.
In short, many of us could make substantial amounts of money by producing
commercial products that work.
>>
You are welcome to follow this commercial path for yourself. Why not do so
if you think it will make money? We don't see it as viable, but
the marketplace is about completing viewpoints, and the nice thing about
the Free Software philsophy (I have no idea what you are referring to when
you use this phrase, but undoubtedly you are confused a
bit on what this means) is that it allows people like you to put
your money where your mouth is on this issue.
You should know by now that you are not going to persuade us to change
course in this respect. We are the only remaining successful Ada vendor
(as in a vendor whose primary product is Ada), and we think that is becayuse
we know how to persue the market. If you think you know better, give it
a try, and show everyone you are right :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 46%]
* Re: Air traffic control system in Java
@ 2011-03-06 22:47 47% ` Rick
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Rick @ 2011-03-06 22:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: charlet, setton, dewar
On Mar 6, 5:21 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 15:32:25 -0800 (PST), Rick wrote:
> > I have AdaCore's GtkAda 2.14.10. It does not have anything like what
> > I see at these URLs. How do I get this functionality?
>
> Interesting, don't you have files like
>
> gtk-extra-plot*.ad*
>
> files in C:\GtkAda\include\gtkada?
As ever, you're right - I do have these files. I just didn't know I
did. I guess I'm not alone in assuming that I have only what the
Reference Manual tells me I have.
>
> Or did you mean the documentation? AdaCore switched the on-line GtkAda
> documentation to an IMO worse version. I don't know the reason why they did
> so. Anyway, it also contains Gtk.Extra.Plot stuff. See:
>
> http://libre.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/gtkada-docs/gtk...
> http://libre.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/gtkada-docs/gtk...
> http://libre.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/gtkada-docs/gtk...
> http://libre.adacore.com/wp-content/files/auto_update/gtkada-docs/gtk...
This RM is from AdaCore. It appears far more comprehensive, although
a little less user friendly. I, for one, could do without the
friendship if it brought greater comprehension. Perhaps the GNAT
Academic Program could, at least, offer the option ... ? It really
opens a whole new world for the (simple) end-user.
Thanks Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 47%]
* Re: Rules for Representation of Subtypes
@ 1996-10-02 0:00 47% ` Ken Garlington
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Ken Garlington @ 1996-10-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert A Duff; +Cc: dewar
Robert A Duff wrote:
>
> In article <325155A5.2E50@lmtas.lmco.com>,
> Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:
> >I seem to remember some AI about using unchecked_conversion when the
> >sizes of X and Y are different. Maybe it's compiler dependent, but I
> >thought you were at least guaranteed that the unchecked_conversion of Y
> >would _fit_ into the space allocated for X, although of course Y might
> >be outside the range of X. In that case, X'Valid should work, shouldn't
> >it?
>
> No. See 13.9.1(12). Nothing, not even 'Valid, can be assumed to work,
> if the execution is erroneous.
>
> - Bob
So all that discussion in the Ada 83 AI-00590 is wasted when we get to Ada 95?
What a crock!
I'd also say that 13.9.2:1 and 13.9.2:4-12 are very misleading, at best, if
this is the case. It sounds like I would have to write a kludge, wrapping
my scalar inside a record, as the result of my input routine, unchecked conversion,
etc. I hope GNAT and the other compilers raise a warning if I apply 'Valid to
something that is not a record component!
--
LMTAS - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For more info, see http://www.lmtas.com or http://www.lmco.com
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 47%]
* Re: Which compiler is correct??
@ 1996-09-11 0:00 47% ` Robert B. Love
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert B. Love @ 1996-09-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: dewar
In <dewar.842410917@schonberg> Robert Dewar wrote:
> Ah, finally I figured this out (I would have had it immediately, if
you had
> said where the error message was posted):
Yep, I clearly should've indicated where the errors were.
> exception
> when Error_In_Demo:
> others => Ada.Exceptions.Save_Occurrence
> (Error_In_Demo,Error_List(3));
>
>
> that's obviously incorrect, Error_In_Demo is a constant, yet you are
using
> it as the Target for save occurrence. I think you are mixing up
target
> and source in the call to Save_Occurrence (not surprising, I think
they
> are the wrong way round too :-)
I'm using the JOOP article to learn about exception handling so
followed
it blindly. I guess the answer should always be READ THE LRM & SPEC!!!
> Anyway, GNAT should certainly post an error message here, these
exception
> occurrence constants are a little peculiar, and we just missed this.
Indeed
> it might have gone undetected for a long time if you had not made
this
> error of having the parameters the wrong way round!
So, do I need to file a bug report or will this do?
I'm glad the Thomson product is working correctly. I want the Ada
market to grow and robust products will be a boon to all.
Thanx for all assistance & comments.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Love, rlove@neosoft.com (local) MIME & NeXT Mail OK
rlove@raptor.rmnug.org (permanent) PGP key available
----------------------------------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 47%]
* Re: Bounded strings yield huge object files.
@ 1997-08-28 0:00 49% ` Bobby D. Bryant
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Bobby D. Bryant @ 1997-08-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
N.B. -- the following takes place in the context of GNAT 3.09 under Red
Hat LINUX 4.2.
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Bobby says
>
> <<Per the appended example, whenever I instantiate a bounded string my
>
> object file grows by about 140Kbytes. This holds whether the
> instantiation is done within a program or as a separate compilation
> unit. (I find that separately compiled instantiations vary in size by
> a
> few thousand bytes depending on the bound that is specified, but those
>
> sizes that I've tried are all in the 140-150K range.)
> >>
>
> Sounds about reasonable for the code of bounded strings with debugging
>
> information included -- of course the majority of this space is the
> debugging information, but you must want it if you are generating it
> (unless you are simply blissfully unaware :-) :-)
Thank you, Robert, for your responses.
While "blissfully unaware" is probably a good description of my relation
to GNAT, Ada, and LINUX all three, I'm not quite convinced that debug
info is the problem. After reading your posts I read up on compiling
for debugging under GNAT, recompiled with % gnatmake -f -g test_2 to
enforce recompilation with debug info, and found that the object file
for the previously mentioned string_80.ads grew from 141708Kb to a
whopping 225924Kb (and, of course, all the other recompiled units'
object files grew as well). Since it grew so much with the -g switch,
I'm fairly confidant that the original file was sans debug info.
Also, regarding your second post, I may need to clarify that the
(non-debug) object file sizes carry over directly to the executable
(that is, an executable program using my string_80 instantiation of the
bounded string stuff is c. 140Kb larger than the same program using
fixed-length strings), so it's not just symbol-table information needed
for consistency checking and linking.
As I say, this isn't killing me, but any further comments (from you or
anyone else) would be appreciated.
Bobby D. Bryant
The University of Texas at Austin
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 49%]
* Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
@ 1997-01-26 0:00 49% ` James O'Connor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: James O'Connor @ 1997-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Tansel said
>
> ">What is highly debatable? I have used C++ for a long time and now I am
> >using Smalltalk, and there is NO comparison in development times. They
> >are simply different categories. Turtle vs. Rabbit."
>
> Yes, an apt reference to the fable, and I trust you remember who wins the
> race between the Tortoise and the Hare (which is the translation of the
> Greek I am used to, but I doubt we know precisely what animals Aesop was
> describing to this level of detail).
> In this case, the reason for the tortoise winning may well be found in
> the long term maintenance and life cycle costs. Yes, langauges like
> Smalltalk are certainly handy for quick prototyping, but who knows what
> the long term life cycle cost effects will be -- answer: no one, because
> commercial use of Smalltalk is too new to have more than scattered data.
Yes, that was perhaps a bad anology on his part to try to prove that
point :)
For that matter, has Ada been used enough in commercial systems long
enough to have meaningful data about long-term maintanence costs?
>
> Again, noticing that Ada is on the list of xpostings, it is interesting to
> note that the first Ada translator (Ada/Ed) was written in a dynamically
> typed language (SETL -- which is a very high level language oriented around
> high level set operations, or more precisely ZF-set operations, where
> general mappings play a critical role. It is a garbage collected langguage
> with pure value semantics (e.g. no pointers).
>
> It is indeed a highly effective prototyping language, and allowed us to get
> something working quickly. However, in retrospec, we felt one of the big
> weaknesses of SETL was precisely the dynamic typing. If your data structures
> are such that only an integer makes sense in a particular context, then it
> is nice to have this statically checked, instead of letting an accidental
> assignment of some incorrect type cause chaos down the road.
>
> These days it is quite entertaining to see a whole new generation of
> programmers introduced for the first time to dynamic typing, but of course
> it is not new at all (LISP is almost as old as Fortran), but in my opinion,
> anything that the compiler can do for you is valuable. What you will find
> programmers saying in the Ada and Alogol-68 worlds is that it is often hard
> work to get the program past the compiler, but once past, it works the first
> time.
>
> Ada programmers often don't paricularly care about debuggers -- ask a roomful
> of Ada programmers whether they find debuggers useful, and maybe half will
> say they regard them as critical. By contrast, when I suggested the idea
> that debuggers were not that important to Gabriel (of Lisp fame, sorry I
> forget his first name) he thought it was a huge joke, the very *idea* that
> someone could do without a debugger -- it actually set him laughing :-)
I once commented to an (Ada advocate) friend that the more dynamic your
language got, the more you needed dynamic tools to deal with it. When I
did Ada83 years ago, I could use source code print-outs to debug my code
because every object was statically typed and every subprogram call was
statically bound. Now that I use Smalltalk (Ada people think I've
fallen from grace, Smalltalkers think I've reached enlightenment),
source code print-outs are not as valuable because it us much harder to
derive runtime state and flow of control. I wouldn't necessarily say
that over-reliance on dynamic debuggers is good, even in Smalltalk. The
debuggers are verypowerful in Smalltalk, but even better is to use the
various powerful cross-referencing tools to ensure thos errors don't
happen in the first place.
>
> Someone actually posted earlier to this thread the idea that it was pretty
> useless to have the compiler verify type invariants, because debugging
> would find the errors easily. It is positively scary that there are
> programmers around who could say this with a straight face. But then
> any exposure to the general community of programmers is a very
> frightening experience :-)
I was on a particularly ugly project and I used to ask my co-workers "If
someone built a plane the way we're building this software, would you
get in it?"
--
James O'Connor
--------------------------------------
joconnor@jmpstart.com
http://www.jmpstart.com
--------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 49%]
* Re: Does Ada95 beat FORTRAN?!?
@ 1996-04-22 0:00 50% ` Theodore E. Dennison
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Theodore E. Dennison @ 1996-04-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Here is one respect in which Ada 95 is clearly superior to Fortran
> for numerical applications. In Ada 95, there are accuracy requirements
> for the trig functions, there are no such requirements in Ada 95.
This should read more like,
"In Ada 95, there are accuracy requirements for the trig functions,
there are no such requirements in Fortran".
Robert asked me to post this correction for him, as he is temporarily
away from an internet terminal. Apparently he has trouble bringing
himself to type "the F word". :-)
--
T.E.D.
| Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com |
| Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net |
| URL - http://www.iag.net/~dennison |
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 50%]
* Re: Pthreads in GNAT
@ 1995-04-21 0:00 50% ` Robert W. Brewer
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Robert W. Brewer @ 1995-04-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
>>>>> "R" == Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
R> Using the Provenzano threads, it is indeed possible to get tasking
R> working on Linux, but to do it with the 2.03 release requires quite
R> a bit of knowledge about what is going on.
I'm having trouble getting pthreads working with GNAT 2.04 under Linux.
I have the binary version from ftp.cs.nyu.edu, and am using
pthreads 1.60beta2. I get all kinds of undefined symbols when linking,
like the following:
$ gnatbl tetris.ali -L/usr/tmp/pthreads/config -lpthread
/home/mcculley/gcc-2.6.3/ada/rts/i-cpotim.adb(.text+0x33): undefined reference to `clock_gettime'
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.6.2/adalib/i-cporte.o: In function `interfaces__c__posix_rte__setjmp':
/home/mcculley/gcc-2.6.3/ada/rts/i-cporte.adb:255: undefined reference to `setjmp'
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/2.6.2/adalib/i-cporte.o: In function `interfaces__c__posix_rte__sigsetjmp':
/home/mcculley/gcc-2.6.3/ada/rts/i-cporte.adb:267: undefined reference to `sigsetjmp'
I'm also curious about the /home/mcculley/ paths. They seem a bit strange.
Any tips? Thanks.
-Rob
--
Robert W. Brewer KB3BEH A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more
rbrewer@psu.edu than a college education. --Theodore Roosevelt
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 50%]
* Re: The Red Language
@ 1997-09-11 0:00 50% ` Dean F. Sutherland
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Dean F. Sutherland @ 1997-09-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
I guess that Robert is correct for the general case of specifying inline
expansion. There's one specific case where I believe that the Gnal
"spec" does indeed reasonbly "mandate" inline expansion (possibly even
to Robert's satisfaction).
Routines with nam binding for their formals would seem to "require"
actual inline expansion. (You'll recall from earlier in this thread
that nam binding specifies re-evaluation of the actual object expression
from the call site at each reference in the body of the routine.)
Treating this as (fully semantically checked) macro expansion is the
obvious and straightforward way to achieve this effect.
On the other hand, I suppose that one _could_ do something with
carefully produced function closures or some other such hack (I mean
workaround) -- but I'm hard pressed to see why it would be worth the
effort.
A formalist might argue that, given the lack of a formal language
definition, the inline expansion "mandate" is no more than strongly
worded implementation advice. Of course, this would also imply that
many common procurement specifications for compilation systems are also
no more than strongly worded implementation advice...
Dean
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 50%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
2001-05-04 14:06 51% ` David Botton
@ 2001-05-04 14:02 50% ` David Botton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: David Botton @ 2001-05-04 14:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: comp.lang.ada; +Cc: dewar
I guess the only answer to this "official" position is thank you for
distributing your code at least as GPL, it could have been a worse blow to
the Ada community.
Are you intending on extending this policy at some point to the GNAT
runtime, GtkAda or other frameworks (executables of course have always been
GPL) under the ACT wing?
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 50%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
@ 2001-05-04 14:06 51% ` David Botton
2001-05-04 14:02 50% ` David Botton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: David Botton @ 2001-05-04 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: comp.lang.ada; +Cc: dewar
Will packages like XML\Ada that are under the new ACT policy be available
for purchase or under a very low price minimal support contract that are
reasonable for small time developers?
(The guys at RR Software must be loving this new policy :-)
David Botton
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 51%]
* Re: Ada 95 - the interpretation of the Gnu 'copy left'
@ 1997-10-29 0:00 51% ` John Lindsay
0 siblings, 1 reply; 200+ results
From: John Lindsay @ 1997-10-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> John Lindsay <lindsay_j@rmc.ca> writes re GNAT:
>
> > This is one of the Gnu compilers, utilities,
> > etc., is free to use, and the source code is available.
> > But its covered by the Free Software Foundation's famous
> > 'copy left' (as opposed to copyright), and one can't use it
> > for profit without further arrangements;
>
> I find it a bit surprising that John would be confused in this way. This
> is of course quite incorrect. Anyone can use GNAT to build any kind of
> programs at all, proprietary, classified etc. There are no restrictions
> of any kind placed on programs generated by GNAT, and the runtime is
> explicitly licensed in a manner that ensures that no restrictions are
> engendered by the use of this runtime.
>
> Robert Dewar
> Ada Core Technologies
Well, this is good; thanks to Robert and one other who
corrected my understanding. But I read a copy of the
'copy left' some time ago with exactly this question and
a related question - can the Gnu compilers &c. be used to
create software to be distributed at all without also
distributing the whole particular Gnu package used to
create it - in mind. My understanding (incorrect - separate
arrangements needed to use for profit, correct - no need to
redistribute the whole thing) came from that reading.
The copy left is verbose, perhaps necessarily so, and
perhaps it has been reworked since I read it. I wonder if
a short 1-paragraph plain English explanation is needed to
accompany it, not in any way replacing or modifying the
full 'legal' text.
--
All the best !
John H. Lindsay, Assistant Professor,
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA
PO BOX 17000 STN FORCES
KINGSTON ON K7K7B4 CANADA
e-mail: Lindsay_J@RMC.CA
Phone: (613) 541-5010-6419
Fax: (613) 542-8129
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 51%]
* Re: Asynchronous Transfer of Control
@ 1996-10-29 0:00 51% ` m193884
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: m193884 @ 1996-10-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
I just noticed the answer to one of Robert's questions, and I thought I would
point out a possible confusion.
In article <32656457.1A76@csehp1.mdc.com> <DzF1Fo.CJs.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <DzFAMr.6DG@world.std.com> <326E3BD9.62CB@csehp1.mdc.com> <dewar.846112325@merv>,
dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
> other than these two sections. Note that it is NOT the case that
^^^
> abort completion points are only important if the compiler does not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> support preemptive abort, I don't know where you got this idea. The
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> rule is that an abort CANNOT happen later than the point of an
> abort completion point, and this absolute rule applies regardless
> of the requirements in D.5(2-12) which do NOT contains this specific
> requirement.
It was right there in my reply. Go take it up with Tucker Taft. One of you
is confused or wrong. It ain't me.
In article <DzF1Fo.CJs.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
Tucker Taft <stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
>Abort completion points are only important if the compiler does not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>support preemptive abort (D.6). Ask your vendor whether they support
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>preemptive abort (it is required if they support the Real-Time annex).
See what I mean?
--
James Squire mailto:m193884@csehp1.mdc.com
MDA Avionics Tools & Processes
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace http://www.mdc.com/
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
"Take my advice and go back to the time you came from. The future isn't
what it used to be."
-- G'Kar, "The Long Dark"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 51%]
* Re: acceder au NETBIOS avec ADA
@ 1996-11-28 0:00 53% ` sam
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: sam @ 1996-11-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
Robert> Probably what would be effective is to form a sub group
Robert> devoted to discussion of Ada in French. That would decrease
Robert> noise levels both for French speaking and English
Robert> speaking/reading readers, and indeed it might be nice to form
Robert> other national subgroups of this type.
Actually, a vote for the creation of various "fr.comp.lang.*" groups
is already in progress (and will terminate on Dec. 1 I
think). "fr.comp.lang.ada" is one of them (yes, we had to push hard
for it since it was not included in the first bunch of proposed
groups).
And as Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote a few days ago, there is a french
mailing-list that people can freely subscribe to from URL
http://ada.eu.org/ (Ada-France WWW server).
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@ada.eu.org
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 53%]
* Re: C++ to Ada Link Problems
[not found] <9802271359.AA07254@nile.gnat.com>
@ 1998-02-27 0:00 53% ` James Huckaby
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: James Huckaby @ 1998-02-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Even if you have to use Ada 83, you will find that it is MUCH easier
> to do this in GNAT, which fully supports Ada 83. Note that there is NO
> portable way of doing what you want AT ALL in Ada 83, so if your
> requirement is to do this in standard Ada 83 in a portable manner, you
> can pack up your tools now, it is impossible. Only Ada 95 begins to
> standardize such interfacing.
>
> But given that you have to write it in implementation dependent Ada 83,
> you would indeed NOT have a notoriously difficult time of it with GNAT.
> Not only is GNAT far better technically suited to the task, but you would
> get the kind of support from its vendor that you need, instead of having
> to resort to the last-chance-desperation of hoping that someone among the
> dwindling number of knowledgable contributors to Comp.Lang.Ada helps you.
> (the amount of complete nonsense in posts to this group published as if
> by experts who know what they are talking about is alarming, as is the
> decrease in the frequency with which such nonsense posts are corrected).
Unfortunately, I have to link to ada libraries given to us by a
contractor
that are done using Sun Ada 2.1 as well. Despite that our contract
requires
that we use commercially supported software. To top that off, I
personally
have nothing to do with software installation, choices, et al, but have
been
informed by our person in that area that GNAT is not an option. (Which
he
also regrets and says that if we had the option we would have already
jumped
on it)
Simply put, is it at all possible with the resources I have now (Sun Ada
2.1
and Sun C++ 3.0, upgrading soon to Sun Ada 3.0, and Sun C++ 4.0) to link
Ada and C++?
''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''
James Huckaby mailto:James.B.Huckaby@LMCo.com
''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''
``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 53%]
* Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
@ 1997-01-26 0:00 54% ` James O'Connor
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: James O'Connor @ 1997-01-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Alan says
>
> "So then, why have so many investment banks adopted Smalltalk as the language
> of choice for doing securities trading applications? The reason typically
> given is that development speed in Smalltalk is so much faster--which boils
> down to big bucks on the trading floor. Could the financial people be wrong?"
>
> Of course they could .. I know of one major catastrophe in attempting to
> use Smalltalk for a large financial application -- which ended up costing
> a huge amount of money ....
Curious, was the catastophe because of Smalltalk? Or because of bad
design/requirements analysis? I would be more inclined to guess the
later. Like the Arianne V that blew up awhile back? Wasn't that
written in Ada? Was it because it was written in Ada or becuase the
designer made a mistake. I would be inclined to think it was the
designer's fault, not the languages.
>
> If you assume that popularity is necessarily related to technical
> soundness, no doubt you think that MSDOS was a perfect operating
> system, and that Lots 1-2-3 macro language is the best programming
> language!
I do, however, think that Alan's point is that some big people with a
lot of money and a lot at stake have decided that Smalltalk is a viable
solution for that environment.
--
James O'Connor
--------------------------------------
joconnor@jmpstart.com
http://www.jmpstart.com
--------------------------------------
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 54%]
* Re: ACT announces availability of GNAT 3.14p
@ 2002-02-03 8:07 55% ` Leon Winslow
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Leon Winslow @ 2002-02-03 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Ada Core Technologies (ACT) has made available at the NYU
> site (ftp://cs.nyu.edu/pub/gnat) GNAT 3.14p builds for the
> following targets:
>
> MS Windows (NT/2K)
> Sparc Solaris (2.5.1 through 2.8)
> GNU Linux (Redhat 6.2)
>
> The above are the official platforms, but in practice the
> NT version works reasonable well on Win 98 and Win ME and
> other versions of GNU Linux including Debian GNU/Linux are
> known to be compatible with this version of GNAT.
>
> These are the only public versions that ACT plans to build.
> As always, the releases contain the full sources, and we
> invite volunteers to create builds for other platforms. We
> also draw attention to the availability of source snapshots
> for the current development version of GNAT (similar to the
> 3.15 release, but on GCC 3, rather than GCC 2). The above
> public versions are still based on ACT's 2.8.1 GCC version.
>
> These versions are provided without any warranty or
> guarantee of any kind, and no support of any kind is
> available for these public versions from ACT. They are
> provided as a service for use by students, hobbyists and
> researchers who need access to a high quality Ada 95
> system.
>
> handling
I can understand the reason for limiting ACTs work to Windows NT, but
this is also one of the reason that Ada is "sliding into oblivion."
The majority of the programming is being done on Windows platforms other
than NT and 2K. (MS has already announced dates for dropping all suport
of these two platforms.). A compiler that works "reasonably well" in
W98, XP or Me is never going to be used on those platforms for any
serious work.
Alas, I knew Ada well and hate to see it go down hill, but ....
Lee Winslow
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 55%]
* Re: Ada 95 - the interpretation of the Gnu 'copy left'
@ 1997-10-31 0:00 55% ` John H. Lindsay
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: John H. Lindsay @ 1997-10-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
I had written:
.... snip ....
> I wonder if
> a short 1-paragraph plain English explanation is needed to
> accompany [the Gnu Public Licence] ....
Robert Dewar replied:
> I don't think a one paragraph summary would be likely to be helpful. I
> think most people understand quite clearly that the issue arises with
> runtime routines only (to think that the GPL somehow covers the *output*
> of the compiler makes no sense at all. ....
[ Robert compared the situation to the use of other (non-compiler)
programs.]
I agree, it makes no sense from my point of view and from others' point
of
view too I say, but restricting the use of the run-time and the compiler
output is possible, and I've seen it done, darn it all.
> .... but the runtime is not under the GPL, due
> to the special exception paragraph:
.... snip ....
> -- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this --
> -- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, --
> -- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be --
> -- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not --
> -- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be --
> -- covered by the GNU Public License. --
.... snip ....
Ahh ! So ! It's not covered. Good. Thanks.
--
John H. Lindsay lindsay_j@rmc.ca
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF CANADA
P O BOX 17000 STN FORCES
KINGSTON ON K7K 7B4 CANADA
Phone: (613) 541-5010--6419
Fax: (613) 541-6584
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 55%]
* Re: Relational Operators
@ 2001-10-29 19:31 55% ` David Starner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: David Starner @ 2001-10-29 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
On Mon, 29 Oct 2001, in comp.lang.ada, Martin Dowie wrote:
> Does this tie in with Robert Dewar's point about LRM references in
> compiler messages?
>
> e.g.
> GNAT
> test.adb:4:21: unexpected relational operator
>
> ObjectAda
> test.adb: Error: line 4 col 21 LRM:4.4(3), Operand of = cannot be
> another relational operation, Inserting parentheses
>
> I know which I found more useful, but perhaps this is just "My Opinion"
But I don't see wht the LRM reference adds. "Operand of = cannot be
another relational operation" alone is better than the GNAT message,
with or without the LRM reference (and I'm really not much interested in
the functionings of the compiler error-correcting routines.)
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I saw a daemon stare into my face, and an angel touch my breast; each
one softly calls my name . . . the daemon scares me less."
- "Disciple", Stuart Davis
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 55%]
* Re: Urgent question: malloc and ada...
@ 1998-05-01 0:00 55% ` Charles Hixson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Charles Hixson @ 1998-05-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Actually, if someone were to rewrite the Linux kernel in Ada, it might
be VERY useful. Ada is supposed to catch errors MUCH more readily, and
an OS without internal errors would be extremely popular (at least with
some people [like me]).
I haven't checked the actual scope of the proposal, but if Linux were
being maintained in Ada rather than in C, there would be a large
increase in the number of interested (in Ada) people.
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Larry said
>
> <<I find it strange that even in comp.lang.ada a distinguished contributor
> would express the assumption that the operating system was written in C.
> >>
>
> Perhaps that is because the distinguished contributor lives in the real
> world, and not a wishful-thinking world! In practice the definition
> expressed here is a useful one, since of course it is almost always
> the case that the operating system involved will have substantial
> chunks written in C (probably it won't be 100% C, there will be C++,
> and perhaps assembly .....)
>
> It would be a nice excercise to rewrite the Linux kernel in Ada, and indeed
> the comparison of the effort involved, and the final results would make
> an interesting student research paper. This is by no means an out of scope
> effort. The core of the kernel is not a gigantic program.
>
> But until such a thing is done, I am afraid that Larry will continue
> to find the real world strange :-)
--
Charles Hixson charleshixson@earthling.net
(510) 464-7733 or chixso@mtc.dst.ca.us
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 55%]
* Re: Reading a line of arbitrary length
@ 1997-02-16 0:00 56% ` Brian Rogoff
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Brian Rogoff @ 1997-02-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
On 15 Feb 1997, Robert Dewar wrote:
<... about the SNOBOL-like string library for GNAT ...>
> Brian asked
>
> << Will this library be written in portable Ada-95, or will it be
> GNAT specific? The former would of course be preferable, and save many
> people from writing and using crude approximations.>>
>
> it uses (in a critical manner) the GNAT attribute Unrestricted_Attribute.
> This is needed both in the implementation, and in the use of the package
> (unless you want to force all referenced functions to be at the library
> level). It may well have other specific GNAT dependencies. The design
> objective is to be usable with GNAT, not with arbitrary Ada 95 compilers.
This is unfortunate, IMO. Do you think that it would be
prohibitively difficult to implement the library in standard Ada 95? I've
started working on my Ada pattern matching library, which is based on a
Perl style regexp matcher, but I'd drop it if I knew that something better
was on the way. Here "better" also means "portable".
-- Brian
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 56%]
* Re: Is Ada likely to survive ?
@ 1997-07-21 0:00 56% ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Rakesh says
>
> <<I appreciate that with the over 50 million lines of US DOD Ada code that
> exist and the numerous other Ada projects around the world, Ada will be
> around for quite a while (to maintain all this code). However, I am
> looking at it more from the point of view of new projects.
...
> I don't think you need to worry about having Ada programmers around to
> maintain your code in ten years. If you are trying to look ahead ten
> years to see what will be the popular language-du-jour in the year 2007,
> I think that is an idle excercise.
I concurr; he doesn't have a SNOBOL's chance <g> of predicting what
language
will be top dog in ten years, so he's better off trying to decide what
language will let him do the best job now.
> Robert Dewar
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Senior Software SE
The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers:
reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com,
user smetz.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 56%]
* Re: Development process in the Ada community
@ 2002-04-28 14:18 56% ` Michael Erdmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Michael Erdmann @ 2002-04-28 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Michael Erdmann <Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de> wrote in message news:<3CCA609F.9030503@snafu.de>...
>
>
>>* In long terms the library should become a defacto
>> standard for the Ada community and should be
>> boundeld with Ada compilers.
>>
>
> Don't count on this kind of bundling. Speaking for ACT, we
> would only bundle a library if:
>
> a) our customers actively needed a supported version
> b) we had the resources to provide full support
>
> I think it's still a success to generate some useful packages
> even if they don't get bundled by vendors.
I dont count on it, this is just an statement of intention!
>>* Please no extensive style discussions, a common style
>> will evolve during the first iterations of the
>> project.
>>
>
> That seems a mistake to me, it is very difficult to impose a common
> standard later on. Why not at least adopt -gnaty as a starting point
> together with the general guidelines in AQ&S. I don't think -gnaty
> is someone better than some other possible standard, but consistency
> is important, and it is important to agree on something.
But i won't reject a package for style reasons, if it does
what it is expected to do.
I like to avoid discussions about the form of identifiers,
e.g. Container_Type or simply Container.
Sure complete anarchy has to be avoided,
but i like to discuss this issue on a case to case
basis not in general
>
>>Any how i like to invite every body in the community
>>to spend some time in checking there repositories
>>for usefull components. If you find something
>>usefull (which means you already used it your self)
>>or if you are willing to be the champion of a domain
>>simply send me a mail, that we get organized!
>>
>
> A reasonable invitation! Most certainly ACT spends quite
> a bit of time generating such components, and they get
> put in our GNAT library, which is available for anyone
> to look at and either use, or derive inspirations from :-)
I hope it works out!
M.Erdmann
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 56%]
* Re: Q: Generating Documenation from Ada Sources?
@ 2002-05-11 19:07 56% ` Michael Erdmann
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Michael Erdmann @ 2002-05-11 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
> Michael Erdmann <Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de> wrote in message news:<3CDD31D7.2060005@snafu.de>...
>
>>I am looking for open source tools which are
>>generating documentation out of package
>>specifications.
>>Such a tools sould not just list the items
>>in the specification but also extract the
>>comments belonging to these items into a
>>resonable format.
>>
>>Who knows more about the topic?
>>
>>Michael
>
>
>
> For a well written Ada spec, it would seem that the unix tool cat would
> do what you want, or possibly something like gnathtml. I think you need
> to be a whole lot more specific about what you are looking for. What else
> is there in a spec except items and comments?
The point is that Ada spec. come along with
coments which expalains certain aspects of
an interface.
I like to generate from the *.ads file a
docbook (sgml) formated manual page which
contains the explanatory text. This mean
for example the package name goes into the
section name, the description into a
paragraph, the spec. it self goes into
a program listing section.
I guess i am not the first one having
such a problem!
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 56%]
* Re: Ada95 Streams Question
@ 1996-07-02 0:00 57% ` sam
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: sam @ 1996-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
Robert> this is wrong, a 13 byte array causes the bytes of the array
Robert> to be written out as individual stream elements, and the
Robert> resulting stream will be 13 bytes long. I really don't know
Robert> what Laurent has in mind, but probably something significant,
Robert> since he knows this code pretty well!
Laurent's remark was concerning XDR IMHO, not the way it's done in
GNAT.
Sam
--
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@ada.eu.org
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 57%]
* Re: Help B* and B+ Trees
@ 1998-05-15 0:00 57% ` Charles Hixson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Charles Hixson @ 1998-05-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Yes, he explains a lot. But I kept finding that I had to drop into MIX
to figure out EXACTLY what he meant, and if one is implementing a
B-Tree, the EXACTLY is precisely what is wanted.
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Charles says
>
> <<Well... depending on your level of expertise, Knuth wrote the book on
> this one. Warning: He uses assembly code for a pseudo-machine in his
> explanations!
> >>
>
> This is quite unfair to Don, he explains algorithms in a high level
> manner using abstract pseudo-code. MIX is only used in low level analysis
> of actual performance on a typical machine, i.e. to get a feel for the
> constants involved and go from O(n**2) to C*n**2, you need a concrete
> machine!
--
Charles Hixson charleshixson@earthling.net
(510) 464-7733 or chixso@mtc.dst.ca.us
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 57%]
* Re: C++ to Ada Link Problems
[not found] ` <9802270246.AA28724@MERV.CS.NYU.EDU>
@ 1998-02-27 0:00 57% ` James Huckaby
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: James Huckaby @ 1998-02-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> You will find that the problems of interfacing to C and C++ are FAR
> simpler using Ada 95 in general, and GNAT in particular. I suggest
> giving consideration to this alternative. Ada 83 systems tend to be
> notoriously difficult to interface to C++.
Well, I've been having a notoriously difficult time of it, but
I'm limited due to contracts and contractors. I have to use
Ada 83.
''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''
James Huckaby mailto:James.B.Huckaby@LMCo.com
''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''
``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``''``
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 57%]
* C++ Class
@ 1997-02-12 0:00 57% ` Loc Minh Phan Van
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Loc Minh Phan Van @ 1997-02-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Hi,
Is there anyway that we can Define a class that can not be instantiated
in any way by the user (that is, you can not have objects of that type),
but it can be used as a base class.
If so please give me a little example.
Thanks
Fr, Loc Phan
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 57%]
* Re: Ada News Brief - 96-05-24.txt [1/1]
@ 1996-06-04 0:00 57% ` Richard Riehle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: Richard Riehle @ 1996-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Dewar
Robert,
Thank you for you commentary on my original post. I certainly did not
make myself clear first time around. However, it is nice to know that,
although your remain unconvinced, you do recognize the rationale for
the underlying concerns.
Richard Riehle
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 57%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
@ 2001-05-04 15:34 60% dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: dewar @ 2001-05-04 15:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David, comp.lang.ada; +Cc: dewar
<<Will packages like XML\Ada that are under the new ACT policy be available
for purchase or under a very low price minimal support contract that are
reasonable for small time developers?
>>
No, we are not in this kind of business at all
<<(The guys at RR Software must be loving this new policy :-)
>>
They aren't a force in the Ada market at all at this stage, and they sell
all their stuff under proprietary licenses anyway.
The only people who are affected by this policy are non-customers who want
to build proprietary software, or those who want to build tools and libraries
for such parties, and they have never been on our radar screen.
The only comunities we are interested in helping are our supported customers
and those developing free software products for use in entirely free software
activities.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 60%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
@ 2001-05-04 16:14 62% dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: dewar @ 2001-05-04 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David, comp.lang.ada, dewar
<<The only comunities we are interested in helping are our supported customers
and those developing free software products for use in entirely free software
activities.
>>
I should add students fiddling around to that :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 62%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
@ 2001-05-04 15:32 65% dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: dewar @ 2001-05-04 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David, comp.lang.ada; +Cc: dewar
<<Are you intending on extending this policy at some point to the GNAT
runtime, GtkAda or other frameworks (executables of course have always been
GPL) under the ACT wing?
>>
First of all, we have no firm policy even in this case, so far our customers
have reacted entirely positively (those who have raised the issue), so it is
not an issue for them.
Second, we will do things on a case by case basis, so it is not clear what
will happen in the future.
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 65%]
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released
@ 2001-05-04 17:21 66% dewar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 200+ results
From: dewar @ 2001-05-04 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David, comp.lang.ada; +Cc: dewar
<<I hope that if you should see (in my opinion, realize) in the future that
making these sort of libraries available in a less restrivtive lic. will
help to garner more interest in Ada and that can only be good for ACT's
business in the future that you will consider changing the lic.
>>
We don't really see that allowing people to use our technology in proprietary
products when they are not our customers helps us :-)
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 66%]
Results 1-200 of ~7510 next [<= 22%] | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2001-05-04 17:21 66% [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released dewar
2001-05-04 15:32 65% dewar
2001-05-04 16:14 62% dewar
2001-05-04 15:34 60% dewar
[not found] <9802271359.AA07254@nile.gnat.com>
1998-02-27 0:00 53% ` C++ to Ada Link Problems James Huckaby
[not found] <340ED5D8.2DEF6D3@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
[not found] ` <199709051335.PAA25952@basement.replay.com>
1997-09-05 0:00 ` The Red Language Dean F. Sutherland
1997-09-08 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1997-09-09 0:00 ` Arthur Evans Jr
[not found] ` <dewar.873953300@merv>
1997-09-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-09-11 0:00 50% ` Dean F. Sutherland
[not found] <3403D2AB.81E37D9C@mail.utexas.edu>
1997-08-27 0:00 ` Bounded strings yield huge object files Robert Dewar
1997-08-28 0:00 49% ` Bobby D. Bryant
2001-05-07 15:53 46% [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released dewar
1997-05-01 0:00 44% C vs Ada code quality Valentin Bonnard
1996-04-04 0:00 43% Ada used to develop Medical Analytical Systems Phil Snarski
1994-09-08 13:45 42% DOS ALSYS ADA and DOS=HIGH Rick Ballard
1998-10-22 0:00 40% Gnat Free ? Van Snyder
[not found] <20010504153453.63BD7F289F@nile.gnat.com>
2001-05-04 16:56 45% ` [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released David Botton
2001-05-07 7:21 39% ` Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
[not found] <GRAHAM.94Sep27181841@canopus.clsi.com>
1994-09-28 21:41 ` Types with physical dimension Tucker Taft
1994-09-29 4:11 ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-29 11:19 ` Peter Hermann
1994-10-03 4:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-29 13:37 ` Tucker Taft
1994-10-03 4:40 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <199412031821.LAA27900@hops.entertain.com>
1994-12-04 4:25 ` Robert Dewar's horrible posts David Weller
1994-12-04 5:43 ` Dave Retherford
1994-12-08 18:14 ` -mlc-+Schilling J.
1994-12-10 13:43 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <1994Oct7.181343.9070@sei.cmu.edu>
1994-10-12 18:35 ` Ada NEWS -- Week Ending 7 Oct 1994 Lance Kibblewhite
1994-10-13 3:32 ` Tucker Taft
1994-10-13 15:23 ` Dave McAllister
1994-10-13 19:55 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-11 1:49 22% TRI-Ada '94 advance program Robert Dewar
[not found] <3f9g1u$j4m@nps.navy.mil>
[not found] ` <D2H5un.FEr@nntpa.cb.att.com>
[not found] ` <3fcs59$70s@nps.navy.mil>
[not found] ` <3ff186$c19@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
1995-01-17 17:57 ` ADA Objects Help! Mats Weber
1995-01-18 17:47 ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-20 16:04 ` Mats Weber
1995-01-21 18:59 ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-25 20:44 ` Mats Weber
1995-01-27 4:03 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <1995Jan16.132400@lglsun.epfl.ch>
[not found] ` <131279@cup.portal.com>
1995-01-20 16:52 22% ` Ada " Robert Dewar
1994-09-11 1:50 22% TRI-Ada '94 advance program Robert Dewar
[not found] <1994Sep1.122026.17797@sei.cmu.edu>
[not found] ` <347b20$jf9@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
[not found] ` <347r7s$8nk@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
1994-09-07 16:28 ` Multiple compilation-units (was: Re: GWU/ADA Interface) John M. Mills
1994-09-09 1:46 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <DERWAY.94Aug31155314@alumni.ndc.com>
[not found] ` <ROCK.94Sep3181528@twratl.atlanta.twr.com>
[not found] ` <1994Sep9.072456.1302@gtewd.mtv.gtegsc.com>
1994-09-09 18:48 ` Eiffel for DoD development? (Was Re: Why Commit to Eiffel?) David Weller
1994-09-20 11:10 ` Eiffel for DoD development? Wayne Dernoncourt
1994-09-20 17:18 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-24 18:44 ` Fred McCall
1994-09-30 13:38 ` Kevin Weise
1994-10-03 23:01 ` Richard Riehle
1994-10-04 5:18 ` Gregory Aharonian
1994-10-04 14:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-02 5:29 22% Why don't large companies use Ada? Robert Dewar
1994-09-23 20:11 22% GNAT for Sun Solaris 2.3 Robert Dewar
[not found] <"Jwic53.0.fY6.3v06l"@autan>
1995-01-16 3:25 22% ` Strange behaviour with protected objects Robert Dewar
[not found] <INFO-ADA%94092110295932@VM1.NODAK.EDU>
1994-09-22 14:17 22% ` Student views on Ada Robert Dewar
[not found] <TARJEIJ.95Jan11183331@ulrik.uio.no>
[not found] ` <D29L78.J9@nntpa.cb.att.com>
[not found] ` <D2J8H0.DMu@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
1995-01-18 5:01 22% ` Ada.strings.bounded problems? Robert Dewar
1995-01-12 18:16 ` Norman H. Cohen
1995-01-13 19:29 ` Mats Weber
[not found] ` <3fduto$ta7@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
[not found] ` <Mats.Weber-1701951908250001@mlma11.matrix.ch>
1995-01-18 17:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-18 14:27 ` Norman H. Cohen
1995-01-19 16:49 ` Mats Weber
1995-01-21 5:28 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-12 22:17 ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <D2D8DC.JvM@nntpa.cb.att.com>
[not found] ` <3fja22$fab@source.asset.com>
1995-01-20 5:12 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <hbakerCxFK2p.4wp@netcom.com>
[not found] ` <1994Oct11.161048.1058@nosc.mil>
1994-10-11 20:06 ` Modulus and Remainder operations (Was Re: Help with a bit of C code) Norman H. Cohen
1994-10-13 1:51 ` Henry G. Baker
1994-10-13 8:27 ` Magnus Kempe
1994-10-13 12:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-14 15:45 ` Henry G. Baker
1994-10-14 22:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
1993-05-28 6:37 22% what languages Ada 9X compilers are being written in Robert Dewar
1993-06-06 23:21 22% Meridian and Ada (not ADA) Robert Dewar
1993-05-05 17:39 22% Passing procedures as parameters to procedures Robert Dewar
[not found] <m-bartz-1701950936420001@macgalois.ee.memst.edu>
[not found] ` <3fgsin$kc6@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
[not found] ` <3fhub3$4gv@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1995-01-18 13:50 ` C programmer with Newbie question David O'Brien
[not found] ` <D2MB10.33w@world.std.com>
1995-01-19 9:32 ` Peter Hermann
1995-01-20 16:55 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <1995Jan11.154250@clstac>
1995-01-12 22:14 ` ADA-9x done? Any good PC compilers? Robert Dewar
1995-01-13 14:02 ` Howard.Gilbert
[not found] ` <3f9m5u$rc8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
[not found] ` <EACHUS.95Jan17120531@spectre.mitre.org>
1995-01-18 23:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-19 19:08 ` Robert I. Eachus
1995-01-21 5:31 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <3fcf8f$dm6@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1995-01-18 20:50 ` Math Lib. for Ada? Ada for X11R6? Matt Kennel
1995-01-20 5:27 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <Cx94z7.Jn7@world.std.com>
[not found] ` <37ab0v$n82@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
[not found] ` <37bph1$naq@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
1994-10-11 17:01 ` ARPA still undermining Ada Kevin Priest~
1994-10-11 19:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-12 9:43 ` Tarjei Jensen
1994-10-12 13:08 ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <37gnv0$j5u@cmcl2.nyu.edu>
1994-10-17 14:25 ` Michael Feldman
1994-10-17 19:14 ` Jay Martin
1994-10-18 16:35 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-12 19:13 ` Mark C. Chu-Carroll
1994-10-13 3:55 ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-17 14:35 ` Michael Feldman
1994-10-18 16:39 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <1995Jan12.143131.2083@midway.uchicago.edu>
[not found] ` <3fh4l1$mpm@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
[not found] ` <3fuskb$hae@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>
1995-01-23 18:09 ` Gurus - which lang. for this task? Cameron Laird
1995-01-24 19:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <199411200820.IAA02428@stout.entertain.com>
1994-11-21 19:24 ` Delphi and SGI's GNAT Ada access of C++ class libraries Tom Quiggle
1994-11-22 3:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] <38afut$8m9@news.delphi.com>
1994-10-24 11:15 ` compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consultant] Robert I. Eachus
1994-10-24 23:19 ` Bob Duff
1994-10-25 13:58 ` Norman H. Cohen
1994-10-25 23:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-19 0:00 GNAT R/T Annex and Win95 Marin David Condic, 407.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-04-20 0:00 37% ` ADA, Windows NT and Real-Time (was GNAT R/T Annex and Win95) Brian K. Catlin
1994-09-12 12:44 GNAT 1.82 for Linux Gene McCulley
1994-09-12 13:57 ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-14 21:47 ` GNAT 1.8? for OS/2 (was Re: GNAT 1.82 for Linux) Howard Holm
1994-09-15 13:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-14 5:06 ` GNAT 1.82 for Linux D Elson
1994-09-15 13:39 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-18 6:39 ADA compiler on Mac? Yingwu Fang
1994-10-18 13:58 ` Arthur Evans Jr
1994-10-18 19:06 ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-19 13:12 41% ` Arthur Evans Jr
1994-10-18 17:58 ` Beth Walker
1994-10-19 0:16 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-07 12:49 Ada Run-Time Royalties - Opinions? R.A.L Williams
1994-12-12 4:29 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-14 3:33 HELP Chiu Bo (Hung Chiu Hung)
1994-10-14 13:21 22% ` HELP Robert Dewar
1999-04-26 0:00 Question for the folks who designed Ada95 Corey Ashford
1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-27 0:00 ` Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen
1999-04-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-28 0:00 ` Corey Ashford
1999-04-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-29 0:00 ` Corey Ashford
1999-04-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-04-29 0:00 45% ` Geert Bosch
1995-01-06 11:45 Programming Libraries in Ada Kai Strempel
1995-01-06 20:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-05 23:51 GNAT problem: Hello World Jacob Sparre Andersen
1994-12-06 12:18 ` W ALI
1994-12-08 20:05 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-09 4:33 GNAT NT & Ada.Direct_IO Mark Riordan
1995-01-09 6:10 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-20 7:29 compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consultant] tmoran
1994-10-20 19:05 ` compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consult Richard L. Conn
1994-10-25 18:08 ` Eric C. Newton
1994-10-25 22:23 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-27 17:08 generic call backs Ewan Benson
1994-09-28 12:13 ` Kevin V. Sobilo
1994-09-28 21:29 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-15 11:55 Why don't large companies use Ada? David Weller
1994-11-16 14:14 ` Doug Robertson
1994-11-22 16:43 ` James Hopper
1994-11-25 18:32 ` Carlos Perez
1994-11-25 20:26 ` Michael Feldman
1994-11-28 14:00 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-28 14:02 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-28 14:27 ` Robert I. Eachus
1994-11-29 4:05 ` Michael Feldman
1994-11-30 20:15 ` Richard Riehle
1994-12-02 5:25 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-02 21:45 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-03 5:43 ` Keith Thompson
1994-12-05 0:03 ` Matt Kennel
1994-12-05 22:59 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-06 2:51 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-08 4:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-08 17:52 ` iSUB in PL/I (was: Re: Why don't large <you-know-whats> use <you-know what>?) Norman H. Cohen
1994-12-10 1:36 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-04 22:39 ` Why don't large companies use Ada? Michael Feldman
1994-12-05 22:57 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-06 2:48 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-08 4:10 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-06 3:29 ` Keith Thompson
1994-12-08 10:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-09 3:16 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-10 13:50 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-08 10:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-25 15:08 LOC counting standards, anyone? Lewis Berman
1994-09-26 13:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-15 17:17 Free Software using AdaEd (Announcement) Charles Lindsey
1994-09-19 2:23 ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-22 23:42 ` Peter Burwood
1994-09-23 20:12 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-13 7:44 Interfacing Ada to Unix/execl var. arg. list function? Dale Stanbrough
1994-10-13 12:22 ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-13 17:37 ` Mark A Biggar
1994-10-13 18:46 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-30 17:55 ClearCase and Ada -- Config. Management Daniel Schwepker
1994-10-05 1:42 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-27 9:44 Initialization Params for Controlled Types Angel Alvarez
1994-10-27 23:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-03 12:49 Language Lawyers help on rep_specs Jeff Etrick
1995-01-03 15:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-03 14:50 ` Theodore E. Dennison
1995-01-03 18:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-03 18:07 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-25 17:18 C functions for GNAT ? Thierry Nodenot
1994-11-30 14:31 ` Running GNAT from the VB3 Shell Command Jack Beidler
1994-12-05 3:06 ` Lance Kibblewhite
1994-12-05 23:03 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-06 16:15 ` Lance Kibblewhite
1994-12-07 14:59 ` Peter Hermann
1994-12-09 15:36 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-13 14:40 Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?] John Volan
1994-10-13 21:14 ` Matt Kennel
1994-10-14 0:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-20 0:00 Does Ada95 beat FORTRAN?!? Kenneth Mays
1996-04-20 0:00 ` Linh C. Nguyen
1996-04-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-04-22 0:00 50% ` Theodore E. Dennison
1994-12-15 9:38 GNAT-2.00 for FreeBSD 1.1.5, NetBSD and BSDI386 available Cornelis van der Laan
1994-12-16 18:46 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-17 15:08 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-25 10:36 Flags in Ada? Andre Spiegel
1994-10-27 8:23 ` Henri Altarac
1994-10-27 23:00 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-27 11:58 What is OO (Was Why don't large companies use Ada?) Andrew Dunstan
1994-11-29 15:48 ` Shawn Willden
1994-11-30 23:26 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-13 1:36 Addressing functions Bill Buckley
1994-12-13 10:14 ` Robert I. Eachus
1994-12-16 14:18 ` Arthur Evans Jr
1994-12-17 17:27 22% ` Robert Dewar
1998-04-07 0:00 Urgent question: malloc and ada Guido Tesch
1998-04-30 0:00 ` Urgent question: malloc and ada...READ/NEW/FOLLOWUP Robert I. Eachus
1998-04-30 0:00 ` Urgent question: malloc and ada Larry Kilgallen
1998-05-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-05-01 0:00 55% ` Charles Hixson
1995-01-09 14:13 Task Scheduling in Applications Written in Ada Dar_Tzen
1995-01-09 16:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-23 0:00 Ada95 Streams Question Robert Dewar
1996-06-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-07-02 0:00 57% ` sam
1994-11-22 14:28 PART/pthreads for GNAT under Linux rosensti
1994-11-23 21:56 22% ` Robert Dewar
1998-12-18 0:00 Ada on MVS Pascal Sartoretti
1998-12-19 0:00 ` dewar
1998-12-21 0:00 43% ` Pascal Sartoretti
1994-11-28 12:56 cross linking packages Rene Burema
1994-11-29 22:07 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-30 23:03 ` Matt Kennel
1994-12-05 20:57 ` Elaboration order [was: cross linking packages] John Volan
1994-12-06 16:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-10 22:20 Run-time checking and speed Tony Leavitt
1995-01-12 14:13 ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <3fa2pk$kbi@felix.seas.gwu.edu>
[not found] ` <EACHUS.95Jan17151835@spectre.mitre.org>
[not found] ` <3fjhrj$9b3@oahu.cs.ucla.edu>
1995-01-20 5:11 ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-23 16:43 ` Mats Weber
1995-01-24 19:25 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-22 18:43 ` Michael Feldman
1995-01-23 23:38 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-05 18:42 GNAT pragma IMPORT and type conversions mcnett michael david
1994-10-05 21:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-14 4:17 Why don't large companies use Ada? Jamie Jamison
1994-11-23 15:40 ` Jules
1994-11-24 15:28 ` Alistair James Robert Young
1994-11-27 11:55 ` Andrew Dunstan
1994-12-01 3:10 ` s-algol Alistair James Robert Young
1994-12-02 14:09 22% ` s-algol Robert Dewar
1994-11-25 13:39 Help Wanted Ian M Wilks
1994-11-28 15:42 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-13 19:48 Marketing Ada: Is the Sky Falling? Richard Pattis
1994-12-14 13:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-14 19:47 ` Marco Antoniotti
1994-12-14 20:34 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-15 16:15 DEC Ada for Alpha Computers Loic Briand
1994-09-16 1:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-23 18:32 Ada + Multi-Byte/Wide Chars = Modern Language? Richard L. Goerwitz
1995-01-24 19:28 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-02 13:23 GNAT-Problem '+'-operator with Count Andreas Krohn
1994-12-09 15:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-06 18:00 Why don't large companies use Ada? Bob Wells #402
1994-12-08 17:51 ` PL/1 vs PL/I (Re: Why don't large companies use Ada?) Michael D Shapiro
1994-12-18 13:47 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-22 14:38 Verdix VADS ADA or GNU ADA on an SGI martin connor
1994-10-04 11:35 ` Fred McCall
1994-10-05 11:35 22% ` Robert Dewar
1997-09-18 0:00 general comment on CLA Robert Dewar
1997-09-19 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1997-09-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-09-21 0:00 40% ` Samuel Tardieu
1994-12-05 0:34 In search of Set/Get Variable reference tool Mike Winslow
1994-12-16 19:01 ` Kevin Weise
1994-12-17 17:43 22% ` Robert Dewar
2001-10-26 12:41 Relational Operators Gordon Cooke
2001-10-26 14:10 ` Ted Dennison
2001-10-29 8:44 ` tgingold
2001-10-29 10:47 ` Martin Dowie
2001-10-29 19:31 55% ` David Starner
2002-04-10 16:33 Development process in the Ada community Michael Erdmann
2002-04-27 8:26 ` Michael Erdmann
2002-04-27 23:54 ` Robert Dewar
2002-04-28 14:18 56% ` Michael Erdmann
1994-12-08 4:17 Anybody else having problems with GNAT 2 and OS2 Warp? Pat Rogers
1994-12-09 21:56 22% ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-11 14:59 Q: Generating Documenation from Ada Sources? Michael Erdmann
2002-05-11 18:29 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-11 19:07 56% ` Michael Erdmann
1994-09-19 14:57 Is Ada being used on this? Gregory Aharonian
1994-09-23 11:10 ` Fred McCall
1994-09-25 12:26 ` Tucker Taft
1994-09-26 12:56 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-01 3:11 Type System.ADDRESS Tucker Taft
1994-11-01 13:04 ` Bob Gilbert
1994-11-03 11:31 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-14 1:40 Portable way to read/write from a binary file? Dale Stanbrough
1994-09-14 3:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-14 22:39 ` Dale Stanbrough
1994-09-15 17:08 22% ` Robert Dewar
1998-05-14 0:00 Help B* and B+ Trees whizzbang
1998-05-14 0:00 ` Charles Hixson
1998-05-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-05-15 0:00 57% ` Charles Hixson
1995-01-03 15:59 Avionic Proximity Warning CONDIC
1995-01-04 14:48 ` Norman H. Cohen
1995-01-04 18:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
1997-07-18 0:00 Is Ada likely to survive ? safetran
1997-07-19 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-07-21 0:00 56% ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
1996-09-22 0:00 Rules for Representation of Subtypes Matthew Heaney
1996-09-29 0:00 ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-09-30 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-10-01 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-10-02 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-10-02 0:00 47% ` Ken Garlington
1994-11-03 3:15 Ada replacements for DOS I/O tmoran
1994-11-03 23:05 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-02 16:30 Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?] Robin Rowe
1994-10-03 9:22 ` Andrew Lees
1994-10-03 21:31 ` John DiCamillo
1994-10-04 23:29 ` John DiCamillo
1994-10-05 13:54 ` David Weller
[not found] ` <36uhnl$4c1@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
1994-10-19 11:24 ` Stephen J Bevan
1994-10-19 15:51 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-05 3:52 ` Robin Rowe
1994-10-05 13:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-05 5:19 Syntax question Adrian Cho
1994-10-05 11:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-02 2:06 DOS GNAT 1.83 returns 'unknown file type' on compilation Roger Labbe
1994-11-03 11:34 22% ` Robert Dewar
1999-11-16 0:00 Simple Case Study in Types. Chords G
1999-11-20 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1999-12-04 0:00 ` Richard D Riehle
1999-12-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-12-06 0:00 41% ` David W. Glessner
1994-12-07 20:32 GNAT Port To WIN or WINNT? Mike Gardner
1994-12-09 4:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
1997-01-16 0:00 OO, C++, and something much better! Jon S Anthony
1997-01-17 0:00 ` Don Harrison
1997-01-16 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1997-01-17 0:00 ` Alan Lovejoy
1997-01-17 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
1997-01-17 0:00 ` Alan Lovejoy
1997-01-18 0:00 ` Fergus Henderson
1997-01-17 0:00 ` Alan Lovejoy
1997-01-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-01-26 0:00 54% ` James O'Connor
1997-01-24 0:00 ` Tansel Ersavas
1997-01-25 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1997-01-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-01-26 0:00 49% ` James O'Connor
1994-10-27 11:25 Ada replacements for DOS I/O Elgar the Idiot aka Chris Warwick
1994-10-28 12:17 ` Ted Dennison
1994-10-31 13:21 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-03 9:24 ` Robert I. Eachus
1994-11-05 5:37 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-25 16:09 Ada 9X Doc v5.99 Michel Gauthier
1995-01-26 1:05 ` Matt Kennel
1995-01-26 20:03 ` David Moore
1995-01-28 6:06 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-05 3:00 Easily-Read C++? Ken Garlington
1994-10-05 17:47 ` Kevin Cline
1994-10-05 22:02 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-05 22:23 ` Richard Kenner
[not found] ` <124377@cup.portal.com>
1994-10-11 18:43 22% ` Robert Dewar
2002-01-31 2:49 ACT announces availability of GNAT 3.14p Robert Dewar
2002-02-03 8:07 55% ` Leon Winslow
1994-09-13 13:22 CAUTION: Network Police patrolling c.l.a John R. Cobarruvias
1994-09-13 15:41 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-25 19:32 Generic Child Packages Jack Beidler
1994-10-26 0:05 22% ` Robert Dewar
1998-02-25 0:00 C++ to Ada Link Problems James Huckaby
[not found] ` <9802270246.AA28724@MERV.CS.NYU.EDU>
1998-02-27 0:00 57% ` James Huckaby
1994-10-18 10:20 C-Ada Import of struct's -- Help Bob Wells #402
1994-10-18 9:58 ` David Emery
1994-10-18 19:11 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-08 13:53 Air Force shows how meaningless Ada waiver process is Rhoda Metzger
1994-09-13 16:14 ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-13 20:14 ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-14 2:46 ` Vendor bashing? Sort of Michael Feldman
1994-09-14 14:30 ` Mike Ryer
1994-09-15 13:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-02 7:44 PM bindings for OS/2 gnat? Geert Bosch
1994-12-04 4:17 ` David Weller
1994-12-09 18:21 ` Dirk Zoller
1994-12-12 4:57 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-08 0:36 Free Ada compiler for PC wanted Oliver Kiddle
1994-12-12 4:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-29 20:08 Is Ada the future? [was: Is C++ the future?] John DiCamillo
1994-09-30 13:45 ` David Weller
1994-10-01 21:40 ` John DiCamillo
1994-10-03 9:53 ` Robert I. Eachus
1994-10-03 20:41 ` John DiCamillo
1994-10-04 14:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-10 15:14 Systemless use of 'Address Bob Wells #402
1994-11-14 21:36 ` Norman H. Cohen
1994-11-16 16:11 ` Mats Weber
1994-11-16 23:50 22% ` Robert Dewar
1997-01-03 0:00 What is wrong with OO ? Jon S Anthony
1997-01-03 0:00 ` Matt Austern
1997-01-07 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1997-01-11 0:00 ` Bjarne Stroustrup
1997-02-10 0:00 ` richard
1997-02-10 0:00 ` Charles A. Jolley
1997-02-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-02-12 0:00 57% ` C++ Class Loc Minh Phan Van
2001-04-26 12:19 [ANNOUNCE] XML/Ada 0.5 released Emmanuel Briot
2001-04-26 17:49 ` David Botton
2001-04-27 8:35 ` Preben Randhol
2001-04-27 13:57 ` Ted Dennison
2001-05-03 14:39 ` Thierry Lelegard
2001-05-04 7:57 ` Emmanuel Briot
2001-05-04 14:06 51% ` David Botton
2001-05-04 14:02 50% ` David Botton
1994-10-26 3:19 Flags in Ada? tmoran
1994-10-26 9:59 ` David Emery
1994-10-26 22:32 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-01 14:28 GNAT-Problem Set_Line(), Set_Col() Andreas Krohn
1994-11-12 15:49 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-15 13:30 ` Norman H. Cohen
1994-11-15 17:36 ` Michael Feldman
1994-11-16 0:04 ` Norman H. Cohen
1994-11-16 13:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-28 9:06 Where's Ada OCompiler?! Tung-lin Tsai
1994-09-28 19:33 22% ` Robert Dewar
1996-10-16 0:00 Asynchronous Transfer of Control James Squire
1996-10-17 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-10-17 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-10-23 0:00 ` James Squire
1996-10-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-10-29 0:00 51% ` m193884
1994-10-19 19:37 In-Circuit Emulators with Ada support David Steele
1994-10-20 5:41 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-23 16:14 GNAT Scott Leschke
1994-11-29 15:33 ` GNAT Jack Beidler
1994-11-30 23:01 22% ` GNAT Robert Dewar
1994-12-11 19:56 Marketing Ada tmoran
1994-12-13 3:18 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-18 15:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-13 5:35 ` Carlos Perez
1994-12-14 1:53 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-16 14:54 22% ` Robert Dewar
1999-10-23 0:00 Ammo-zilla Stanley R. Allen
1999-10-24 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla Aidan Skinner
1999-10-24 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla Robert Dewar
1999-10-24 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla David Botton
1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla Charles Hixson
1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla Laurent Guerby
1999-10-28 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla David Starner
1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla Larry Kilgallen
1999-10-29 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla David Starner
1999-10-31 0:00 ` Ammo-zilla Robert Dewar
1999-10-31 0:00 ` Garbage colletion Lutz Donnerhacke
1999-11-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-11-01 0:00 ` Lutz Donnerhacke
1999-11-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1999-11-04 0:00 44% ` Didier Utheza
1994-11-18 21:04 Ada Portability... NOT! Capt. Britt Snodgrass
1994-11-19 16:55 ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-21 23:56 ` Keith Thompson
1994-11-22 3:53 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-05 20:41 GNAT (v1.83 and v2.0) and Booch Components Dan Coyne D054
1994-12-06 14:16 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-27 17:30 line 1(1) ilegal character Hans Petter Fasteng
1994-09-28 21:26 ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-29 15:25 ` Norman H. Cohen
1994-10-03 4:46 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-29 15:23 ` Pascal OBRY
1994-10-03 4:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-14 16:01 Tri-Ada CD ROM Gnat for DOS ISAAC PENTINMAKI
1994-12-17 1:17 22% ` Robert Dewar
1997-03-26 0:00 Ada95 to ANSI_C converter Robert Dewar
1997-03-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-04-02 0:00 ` Richard Kenner
1997-04-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-04-02 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1997-04-04 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1997-04-04 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-04-07 0:00 45% ` Arthur Schwarz
1995-01-13 8:35 Memory overwrite? Rick Wouters
[not found] ` <3fe5cp$fnq@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
1995-01-18 18:20 ` Mark A Biggar
1995-01-20 5:19 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-12 9:39 C++ Envy R.A.L Williams
[not found] ` <3f9bha$r16@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
[not found] ` <3fcjp5$b0v@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>
1995-01-16 18:48 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-14 17:34 Where's Waldo? Where's Ada? Gregory Aharonian
1994-10-14 21:52 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-16 9:58 Question about IO on Unix-machines Joerg Rodemann
1994-12-17 17:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-12 15:50 KUDOS and hats off to Rational !!!!!!!! Gregory Aharonian
1994-09-12 16:22 ` Lewis Berman
1994-09-12 17:15 ` David Weller
1994-09-13 5:44 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-28 3:59 Flags in Ada? tmoran
1994-10-28 13:43 ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-31 14:19 ` Norman H. Cohen
1994-11-03 11:26 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-11-02 14:06 ` Mats Weber
1994-11-03 23:08 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-27 22:18 Types with physical dimension Paul Graham
1994-09-28 13:59 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-24 12:47 Memory overwrite? R.A.L Williams
1995-01-25 21:24 22% ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-23 0:00 acceder au NETBIOS avec ADA Bernard Vesy
1996-11-26 0:00 ` chrleira@mail.mcnet.ch
1996-11-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-28 0:00 53% ` sam
1994-11-04 12:34 POSIX and symbolic links ???? Fredrik Olsson
1994-11-06 21:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-21 21:37 Paradise-3.4 ported to GNAT/Ada9X? SrA Tim Miller
1994-10-21 22:04 ` Larry Kahn
1994-10-24 4:50 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-12 15:12 Ada9X Features Michael Hagerty
1994-09-13 16:08 ` Michael Feldman
1994-09-13 20:04 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-14 16:44 GNAT for Windows NT Brian Wentz
1994-10-14 18:28 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-29 23:05 GNAT not 'getting' CR or LF? Smilin' Ron Finkbine
1995-01-02 4:42 22% ` Robert Dewar
2011-03-03 20:46 Air traffic control system in Java Hyman Rosen
2011-03-04 18:00 ` KK6GM
2011-03-04 18:11 ` Hyman Rosen
2011-03-04 18:18 ` KK6GM
2011-03-04 18:24 ` Hyman Rosen
2011-03-04 18:51 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2011-03-04 20:18 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2011-03-04 20:23 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2011-03-04 21:31 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2011-03-04 21:44 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2011-03-05 1:08 ` Randy Brukardt
2011-03-05 5:15 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2011-03-05 6:45 ` Shark8
2011-03-05 7:15 ` Vinzent Hoefler
2011-03-05 7:37 ` Nasser M. Abbasi
2011-03-05 8:28 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2011-03-05 23:32 ` Rick
2011-03-06 9:21 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2011-03-06 22:47 47% ` Rick
1996-09-10 0:00 Which compiler is correct?? Robert B. Love
1996-09-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-09-11 0:00 47% ` Robert B. Love
1994-11-01 15:20 Another One Bites the Dust! Bob Wells #402
1994-11-03 11:36 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-06 13:06 Why don't large companies use Ada? Paige Vinall
1994-12-13 15:01 ` Array mappings Norman H. Cohen
1994-12-16 18:55 ` Michael Feldman
1994-12-17 0:43 ` Keith Thompson
1994-12-17 17:17 ` Reaching traditional engineering, was: " Michael Feldman
1994-12-18 1:34 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-12-01 10:40 HELP: GNAT for HP 9000/755 john
1994-12-01 20:15 ` Eric Slutz
1994-12-03 2:57 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-03-22 9:06 Does memory leak? Duncan Sands
1995-03-23 2:08 ` T. Owen O'Malley
1995-03-24 11:44 ` Robert Dewar
1995-03-27 14:01 45% ` Theodore Dennison
1995-01-10 10:56 Large Integers? Andre Spiegel
[not found] ` <SPIEGEL.95Jan11111040@berlin.bruessel.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
[not found] ` <3fhjr1$4h8@rational.rational.com>
1995-01-18 23:22 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-10 20:45 ` Charles H. Sampson
1995-01-11 2:39 22% ` Robert Dewar
1995-01-03 19:55 FORTRAN Translation to Ada Alexy V. Khrabrov
1995-01-04 1:13 22% ` Robert Dewar
1996-05-24 0:00 Ada News Brief - 96-05-24.txt [1/1] AdaIC
1996-05-27 0:00 ` Tucker Taft
1996-05-28 0:00 ` Richard Riehle
1996-05-29 0:00 ` Andreas Zeller
1996-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-01 0:00 ` AdaWorks
1996-06-01 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-06-04 0:00 57% ` Richard Riehle
1994-11-16 23:28 GNAT for Mac? Francesco Stiffoni
1994-11-19 7:15 22% ` Robert Dewar
1997-10-20 0:00 Ada 95 AlanVPham
1997-10-20 0:00 ` John Lindsay
1997-10-21 0:00 ` Simon Wright
1997-10-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-10-29 0:00 51% ` Ada 95 - the interpretation of the Gnu 'copy left' John Lindsay
1997-10-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-10-31 0:00 55% ` John H. Lindsay
1997-02-12 0:00 Reading a line of arbitrary length Thomas Koenig
1997-02-13 0:00 ` Rex Reges
[not found] ` <dewar.855848896@merv>
[not found] ` <33037A74.44AF@mds.lmco.com>
[not found] ` <dewar.855929857@merv>
1997-02-14 0:00 ` Gene Ouye
1997-02-15 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-02-15 0:00 ` Brian Rogoff
1997-02-15 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-02-16 0:00 56% ` Brian Rogoff
1997-04-24 0:00 C vs Ada code quality Robert Dewar
1997-04-26 0:00 40% ` Valentin Bonnard
1999-03-02 0:00 Linux World Richard D Riehle
1999-03-02 0:00 ` fraser
1999-03-02 0:00 ` Printing Enum Variable " David Starner
1999-03-03 0:00 ` Fraser Wilson
1999-03-03 0:00 ` David Starner
1999-03-04 0:00 ` Magnus Larsson
1999-03-03 0:00 ` Hans Marqvardsen
1999-03-04 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-03-04 0:00 ` Hans Marqvardsen
1999-03-05 0:00 ` dewar
1999-03-05 0:00 41% ` David Botton
1995-04-05 0:00 Pthreads in GNAT Brian Vinter
1995-04-05 0:00 ` Vladimir Vukicevic
1995-04-21 0:00 50% ` Robert W. Brewer
1994-10-25 21:00 Lines of documentation per LOC Loic Briand
1994-10-25 19:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1994-10-26 13:45 ` Loic Briand
1994-10-26 22:30 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-10-03 1:24 New to ada Seth Hettich
1994-10-03 5:03 22% ` Robert Dewar
1994-09-19 23:59 Vendor bashing and pushing Ada....and an ad from SGI David Weller
1994-09-20 2:19 22% ` Robert Dewar
[not found] ` <35mpre$1fb2@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
1994-09-22 13:53 22% ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox