201. Re: Sockets
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-23 2:33 UTC [22%]
202. Re: Can you use arrays from another package ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-22 22:22 UTC [22%]
203. Re: Can you use arrays from another package ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-22 1:52 UTC [22%]
204. Re: Ada Compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-22 1:47 UTC [21%]
205. Re: ADA and return functions (Strings)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-20 3:06 UTC [20%]
206. Re: ADA and return functions (Strings)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-19 14:30 UTC [21%]
207. Re: GCC 3.1 released
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-19 5:53 UTC [22%]
208. Re: Unusual syntax
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-19 4:30 UTC [22%]
209. Re: Byte order writing to socket stream
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 20:30 UTC [22%]
210. Re: gcc 3.1
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 20:29 UTC [22%]
211. Re: Gnat filenaming
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 20:22 UTC [22%]
212. Re: GCC 3.1 released
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 20:20 UTC [17%]
213. Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 2:59 UTC [21%]
214. Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 2:54 UTC [22%]
215. Re: Problems with Ada.Real_Time on GNAT?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-18 2:49 UTC [22%]
216. Re: Unusual syntax
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 10:01 UTC [21%]
217. Re: Problems with Ada.Real_Time on GNAT?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 9:57 UTC [21%]
218. Re: 64-bit integers in Ada
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 2:28 UTC [22%]
219. Re: Signed integer to modular type conversion
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 2:26 UTC [20%]
220. Re: Ada Compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 1:23 UTC [22%]
221. Re: Ada Compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 1:22 UTC [22%]
222. Re: Ada Compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-17 1:19 UTC [22%]
223. Re: GCC 3.1 released
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-16 22:08 UTC [22%]
224. Re: Signed integer to modular type conversion
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-16 9:53 UTC [22%]
225. Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-16 2:46 UTC [16%]
226. Re: Need advice: Enumerate or not
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-16 2:37 UTC [20%]
227. Re: New, and don't understand the error message!
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-16 2:31 UTC [21%]
228. Re: Signed integer to modular type conversion
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-15 19:12 UTC [22%]
229. Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-15 5:32 UTC [22%]
230. Re: Generation of permutations (copyright)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-14 23:27 UTC [22%]
231. Re: Generation of permutations (copyright)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-14 14:36 UTC [14%]
232. Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-14 14:21 UTC [20%]
233. Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-14 14:18 UTC [21%]
234. Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-14 14:16 UTC [21%]
235. Re: [OT] Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-14 14:13 UTC [22%]
236. Re: Q: Generating Documenation from Ada Sources?
- by Michael Erdmann @ 2002-05-11 19:07 UTC [56%]
237. Re: Q: Generating Documenation from Ada Sources?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 18:29 UTC [22%]
238. Re: OT:GNAT (Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 12:43 UTC [22%]
239. Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 12:39 UTC [21%]
240. Re: More on copyright
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 12:31 UTC [20%]
241. Re: More on copyright
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 12:28 UTC [13%]
242. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 4:05 UTC [22%]
243. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 4:04 UTC [21%]
244. Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 17:32 UTC [20%]
245. Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 15:46 UTC [21%]
246. Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 13:19 UTC [20%]
247. Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 13:16 UTC [22%]
248. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 13:13 UTC [22%]
249. Re: Turing-undecidable languages (OT)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 2:52 UTC [20%]
250. Re: Turing-undecidable languages (OT)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 2:37 UTC [22%]
251. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-09 23:48 UTC [15%]
252. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-09 23:24 UTC [22%]
253. Re: Discriminated record question
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-09 2:56 UTC [19%]
254. Re: Discriminated record question
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-09 2:52 UTC [20%]
255. Re: Where is the GNAT source code
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-09 2:34 UTC [22%]
256. Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 18:01 UTC [20%]
257. Re: Where is the GNAT source code
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 13:05 UTC [19%]
258. Re: Sinclair Spectrum - what everyone wants?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 3:49 UTC [22%]
259. Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 3:46 UTC [22%]
260. Re: Static expression question
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 3:15 UTC [22%]
261. Re: GPS - A new kind of IDE?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 2:34 UTC [20%]
262. Re: [OT] ettiquite - was gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 2:29 UTC [22%]
263. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 2:27 UTC [21%]
264. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-08 2:17 UTC [21%]
265. Re: Static expression question
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-07 10:45 UTC [22%]
266. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-07 10:39 UTC [22%]
267. Re: GNAT Programming System - Wow
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-06 21:52 UTC [20%]
268. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-06 21:33 UTC [22%]
269. Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-06 0:48 UTC [22%]
270. Re: Executable size with GNAT for Windows and Linux
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-06 0:44 UTC [22%]
271. Re: hashing
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-05 13:55 UTC [19%]
272. Re: GPS
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-05 13:01 UTC [22%]
273. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-05 0:52 UTC [21%]
274. Re: Building GNAT from CVS
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-05 0:40 UTC [22%]
275. Re: gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-04 2:07 UTC [22%]
276. Re: [OT] ettiquite - was gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-04 1:53 UTC [22%]
277. Re: GNAT Programming System - Wow
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-04 1:51 UTC [18%]
278. Re: Gnat cross compiling FreeBSD to Win32 ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-03 8:57 UTC [21%]
279. Re: GNAT Programming System - Wow
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-03 8:54 UTC [22%]
280. Re: Bad reply practice (OT)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-03 8:46 UTC [20%]
281. Re: [OT] ettiquite - was gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-03 8:41 UTC [18%]
282. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-02 12:41 UTC [18%]
283. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-02 12:34 UTC [21%]
284. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-02 12:32 UTC [20%]
285. More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-02 12:27 UTC [12%]
286. Re: OT:Copyright, was Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-02 11:58 UTC [22%]
287. Re: gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-02 11:53 UTC [22%]
288. Re: OT:Copyright, was Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 21:56 UTC [19%]
289. Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Kent Paul Dolan
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 12:59 UTC [19%]
290. Re: ANN: GMGPL Claw Page
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 12:51 UTC [20%]
291. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 12:46 UTC [21%]
292. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 12:43 UTC [17%]
293. Re: gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 12:33 UTC [21%]
294. Re: gprof with gnat
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-01 12:30 UTC [21%]
295. Re: How to Build Existing Code Using Apex
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-30 23:02 UTC [22%]
296. Re: Generation of permutations
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-30 22:57 UTC [16%]
297. Re: Hanging compilation
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-30 2:45 UTC [22%]
298. Re: Is this a GNAT bug???
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-30 2:44 UTC [17%]
299. Re: Ada a fourth generation language?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-28 23:47 UTC [22%]
300. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Michael Erdmann @ 2002-04-28 14:18 UTC [56%]
301. Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-28 0:00 UTC [21%]
302. Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-28 0:00 UTC [21%]
303. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-27 23:54 UTC [20%]
304. Re: Is this a GNAT bug???
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-26 22:20 UTC [16%]
305. Re: pragma pack in external packages
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-26 1:55 UTC [20%]
306. Re: pragma pack in external packages
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-26 1:52 UTC [21%]
307. Re: Case statement and Integers.
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-24 11:41 UTC [22%]
308. Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-23 12:44 UTC [17%]
309. Re: The incredibly slimy ethics of Robert Dewar
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-23 12:33 UTC [20%]
310. Re: type or subtype?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-23 0:01 UTC [21%]
311. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 23:57 UTC [22%]
312. Re: Outside view (still): Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 17:57 UTC [16%]
313. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 17:48 UTC [22%]
314. Re: Interval arithmetic in Ada?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 17:43 UTC [20%]
315. Re: Bug in GNAT.Socket.Check_Selector in GNAT 3.14 Linux runtime
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 17:39 UTC [22%]
316. Re: Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:44 UTC [21%]
317. Re: Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:42 UTC [22%]
318. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:40 UTC [22%]
319. Re: type or subtype?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:39 UTC [20%]
320. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:34 UTC [19%]
321. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:24 UTC [22%]
322. Re: Case statement and Integers.
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 13:16 UTC [22%]
323. Re: Case statement and Integers.
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 3:05 UTC [22%]
324. Re: Case statement and Integers.
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 3:01 UTC [22%]
325. Re: Grace and Maps (was Re: Development process in the Ada community)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-22 2:57 UTC [20%]
326. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-21 15:59 UTC [18%]
327. Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-21 1:44 UTC [11%]
328. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-21 1:03 UTC [19%]
329. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-21 0:57 UTC [14%]
330. Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-21 0:38 UTC [21%]
331. Re: How Open Source software developers pay the bills, from within a successful such operation (was): Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-20 16:41 UTC [17%]
332. Re: Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-20 16:30 UTC [12%]
333. Re: Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-20 16:07 UTC [19%]
334. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-20 5:11 UTC [22%]
335. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-20 2:26 UTC [19%]
336. Re: Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-19 14:20 UTC [14%]
337. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-19 14:06 UTC [19%]
338. Re: type or subtype?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-19 11:54 UTC [22%]
339. Re: type or subtype?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-19 11:52 UTC [22%]
340. Re: Paranoia about .NET (still): Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-19 11:49 UTC [20%]
341. Re: type or subtype?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-18 4:50 UTC [22%]
342. Re: type or subtype?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-18 4:48 UTC [20%]
343. Re: Outside view (still): Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-17 22:15 UTC [21%]
344. Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-17 13:29 UTC [18%]
345. Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-17 13:29 UTC [18%]
346. Re: Open Source: in conflict with the development process in the Ada community?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-17 13:20 UTC [19%]
347. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-17 3:22 UTC [18%]
348. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-17 3:11 UTC [17%]
349. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-14 20:01 UTC [22%]
350. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-14 19:59 UTC [19%]
351. Re: Are rendezvous dead?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-14 19:52 UTC [21%]
352. Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-13 14:20 UTC [16%]
353. Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-13 3:30 UTC [22%]
354. Re: Rant! (was) Development process in the Ada community
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-13 0:59 UTC [22%]
355. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-12 20:20 UTC [14%]
356. Re: Newbie: Best Ada Compiler for MS Windows ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-10 4:08 UTC [22%]
357. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-10 1:54 UTC [14%]
358. Re: Requeue
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-08 5:00 UTC [22%]
359. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-08 4:57 UTC [20%]
360. Re: Interfacing ADA to C++ classes with parameters
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-05 15:44 UTC [22%]
361. Re: Ada Dot Net ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-03 15:52 UTC [21%]
362. Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-03 1:02 UTC [22%]
363. Re: Ada Dot Net ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-03 0:56 UTC [22%]
364. Re: Ada Dot Net ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-03 0:50 UTC [22%]
365. Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-02 17:07 UTC [22%]
366. Re: Missing **-operator in GNAT 3.14?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-04-02 16:18 UTC [22%]
367. Re: Ada for Palm ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-26 0:42 UTC [22%]
368. Re: not handled exceptions
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-23 11:52 UTC [21%]
369. Re: Ada for Palm ?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-23 3:28 UTC [22%]
370. Re: periodicity
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-19 5:32 UTC [21%]
371. Re: Copyright, Licensing etc.
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-17 5:07 UTC [18%]
372. Re: constrained subtypes
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-13 14:18 UTC [20%]
373. Re: License issues, LGPL, GMGPL (was Re: Any Ada Genetic Algorithm?)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-12 22:48 UTC [21%]
374. Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-07 1:21 UTC [22%]
375. Re: ada to C++ translation
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-05 4:57 UTC [18%]
376. Re: 3.14p Binary for OS/2. Was: Will there be a 3.14p version of GNAT?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-04 10:41 UTC [22%]
377. Re: 64bit access to an array of 8bit values
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-04 10:31 UTC [22%]
378. Re: 64bit access to an array of 8bit values
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-04 10:29 UTC [21%]
379. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 19:50 UTC [14%]
380. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 19:36 UTC [20%]
381. Re: Converting Char to Enum
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 16:43 UTC [22%]
382. Re: 3.14p Binary for OS/2. Was: Will there be a 3.14p version of GNAT?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 13:54 UTC [21%]
383. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 1:11 UTC [21%]
384. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 1:08 UTC [22%]
385. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 1:06 UTC [18%]
386. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 0:59 UTC [20%]
387. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 0:54 UTC [19%]
388. Re: Complexity of protected objects
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 0:32 UTC [20%]
389. Re: ada to C++ translation
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-03 0:21 UTC [18%]
390. Re: 3.14p Binary for OS/2. Was: Will there be a 3.14p version of GNAT?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-02 17:00 UTC [22%]
391. Re: The making of compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-01 19:35 UTC [20%]
392. Re: compiler benchmark comparisons (was: naval systems)
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-01 19:29 UTC [19%]
393. Re: compiler benchmark comparisons
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-01 5:07 UTC [20%]
394. Re: The making of compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-01 5:02 UTC [22%]
395. Re: The making of compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-03-01 5:00 UTC [22%]
396. Re: GVD port planned for Mac OS X?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-02-27 12:36 UTC [20%]
397. Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-02-27 4:54 UTC [22%]
398. Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array?
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-02-27 4:52 UTC [17%]
399. Re: bit shift
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-02-25 18:08 UTC [22%]
400. Re: The making of compilers
- by Robert Dewar @ 2002-02-25 14:55 UTC [20%]
Results 201-400 of ~7510 next (older) | prev (newer) | reverse | options above
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox