CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt	2007/12/13 04:39:33	1.12
+++ ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt	2008/01/17 07:24:41	1.13
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard C.7.1(17/2)                               07-11-19  AI05-0004-1/09
+!standard C.7.1(17/2)                               08-01-16  AI05-0004-1/10
 !standard 1.1.2(21)
 !standard 1.1.4(14.1/2)
 !standard 3.8(11)
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 !standard 3.9.4(29/2)
 !standard 3.10.2(12.2/2)
 !standard 4.1(7)
+!standard 4.1.4(3)
 !standard 4.3.3(32)
 !standard 7.3(10.1/2)
 !standard 7.4(10)
@@ -79,6 +80,8 @@
 21) The title of Annex M has changed, so the reference to it in 1.1.2(21) should be to
 "Summary of Documentation Requirements". 
 
+22) Mod should be included in the list of attribute designators.
+
 !question
 
 1) Does C.7.1(17/2) apply to calls to Current_Task in an entry barrier? (Yes.)
@@ -162,6 +165,10 @@
 Amendment changed the name to "Summary of Documentation Requirements". Should this be
 corrected? (Yes.)
 
+22) 4.1.4(3) gives a list of attribute designators, explicitly allowing those attribute
+names which are reserved words. The Amendment added the Mod attribute, whose name is
+a reserved word, but it was not added to this syntax. Should this be done? (Yes.)
+
 [Other questions here.]
 
 !recommendation
@@ -218,6 +225,8 @@
 
 21) 1.1.2(21) should say Annex M, "Summary of Documentation Requirements".
 
+22) 4.1.4(3) should include "Mod".
+
 !discussion
 
 1) entry_barrier is syntactically within entry_body. C.7.1(17/2) however, says
@@ -307,6 +316,9 @@
 this paragraph, because the old Annex title was used for that clause (and the tools thus
 used it for the cross-reference). Obviously, we want to use the correct title.
 
+22) This is a clear oversight. Surely it is intended to be able to write the 'Mod attribute,
+which the standard carefully defines.
+
 !corrigendum 1.1.2(12)
 
 @drepl
@@ -405,6 +417,17 @@
 itself a @fa<name> that denotes some related entity, or an @fa<implicit_dereference>
 of an access value that designates some related entity.
 
+!corrigendum 4.1.4(3)
+
+@drepl
+@xcode<@fa<attribute_designator ::= >
+    @fa<identifier[(>static@fa<_expression)]>
+  @fa<| Access | Delta | Digits | Mod>>
+@dby
+@xcode<@fa<attribute_designator ::= >
+    @fa<identifier[(>static@fa<_expression)]>
+  @fa<| Access | Delta | Digits>>
+
 !corrigendum 4.3.3(32)
 
 @drepl
@@ -919,3 +942,19 @@
 the language. As such, I propose to add these changes to the presentation AI.
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+!topic attribute_designator misses Mod keyword
+!reference Ada 2005 RM 4.1.4(3)
+!from Maxim Reznik 07-12-26
+!keywords mod attribute designator
+!discussion
+New attribute Mod was introduced in RM-3.5.4(16.1/2).
+Mod is reserved keyword according to RM-2.9 (2.b), so
+attribute_designator syntax rule should include it:
+
+ attribute_designator ::=
+    identifier[(static_expression)]
+  | Access | Delta | Digits | Mod
+
+****************************************************************
+