In message <7xocdi56cp....@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Paul Rubin wrote:

> I'd say the Ada standardizers went to a great deal of trouble to specify
> and document stuff that other languages simply leave undefined, leaving
> developers relying on implementation-specific behavior that's not part
> of the standard.

OK, I have a copy of K&R 2nd Ed on a shelf within reach here. Can you point 
out some behaviour that C programmers might need to rely on, that is not 
specified in that document?

> Ada itself is not necessarily more complicated.

It is. Look at its baroque type structure. Hint: why is

    type A is B;

a syntax error?
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Reply via email to