Michael Feldman wrote:
> The main reason I mentioned it at all was to show the connection between
> one Borland statement (we won't do Ada because of validation) and
> another Borland position (we don;t even care about Pascal validation -
> we'll do as we choose).
> It's hard to castigate Borland too much - after all, their customers
> didn't care. I'm sure that if Borland could've seen a significant
> market for a _validated_ Pascal compiler (say, one with a pragma to
> let the user specify ISO compliance, as some C compilers do) they
> would've built one.

I think you are misrepresenting Borland's actions.  "Don't even care" is
a little strong.  They did include a section in their manual that listed
the differences between their dialect and the standard.