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

--- ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt	2007/01/13 05:25:55	1.5
+++ ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt	2007/02/20 23:31:19	1.6
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
-!standard C.7.1(17/2)                               07-01-12  AI05-0004-1/03
+!standard C.7.1(17/2)                               07-02-16  AI05-0004-1/04
 !standard 1.1.4(14.1/2)
 !standard 3.8(13.1/2)
+!standard 3.9.4(22/2)
 !standard 3.10.2(12.2/2)
 !standard 4.1(7)
 !standard 4.3.3(32)
@@ -10,6 +11,9 @@
 !standard 10.1.1(17)
 !standard 12.3(7)
 !standard A.11(4/2)
+!standard A.18.7(58/2)
+!standard A.18.7(79/2)
+!standard A.18.7(82/2)
 !standard D.9(6)
 !standard J.1
 !class presentation 06-03-15
@@ -52,6 +56,12 @@
 
 13) The second sentence of 10.1.1(17) is deleted.
 
+14) "Count" should be "Cur_Count" in 3.9.4(22/2).
+
+15) "Union" should be "Intersection" in A.18.7(58/2).
+
+16) A.18.7(79/2) should appear after A.18.7(82/2).
+
 !question
 
 1) Does C.7.1(17/2) apply to calls to Current_Task in an entry barrier? (Yes.)
@@ -104,6 +114,17 @@
 two different ways. And they are adjacent paragraphs in the Standard! Is this
 the Department of Redundancy Department? (Yes.)
 
+14) 3.9.4(20/2) defines a dispatching operation Cur_Count (among others). However, 
+the comment in paragraph 22/2 refers (twice) to "Count". Shouldn't this 
+should be "Cur_Count"? (Yes.)
+
+15) A.18.7(58/2) is defining the meaning of Intersection, so why does the text
+refer to Union? (It should say Union.)
+
+16) A.18.7(79/2) seems to be misplaced; it follows the paragraph that describes
+procedure Next. On the other hand, the function Contains, declared in A.18.7(82/2),
+has no following descriptive paragraph. Should it be moved? (Yes.)
+
 [Other questions here.]
 
 !recommendation
@@ -116,7 +137,7 @@
 
 2) 3.8(13.1/2) should say record_type_definition rather than record_type_declaration.
 
-3) 3.10/2(12.2/2) should say record_component_association rather than component_association.
+3) 3.10.2(12.2/2) should say record_component_association rather than component_association.
 
 4) 4.3.3(32) should say parenthesized expression rather than parenthesized_expression.
 
@@ -132,13 +153,18 @@
 
 10) A.11(4/2) should say Wide_Wide_Text_IO.Wide_Wide_Bounded_IO.
 
-11) The title of J.1 should be "Renamings of Library Units from Previous Versions
-of this Standard".
+11) The title of J.1 should be "Renamings of Library Units".
 
-12) "exponent" should be in the sans-serif font.
+12) "exponent" in 1.1.4(14.1/2) should be in the sans-serif font.
 
 13) The second sentence of 10.1.1(17) should be deleted.
 
+14) "Count" (two places) in 3.9.4(22/2) should be "Cur_Count".
+
+15) "Union" in A.18.7(58/2) should be "Intersection".
+
+16) Move A.18.7(79/2) after A.18.7(82/2).
+
 !discussion
 
 1) entry_barrier is syntactically within entry_body. C.7.1(17/2) however, says
@@ -177,7 +203,13 @@
 intended.
 
 11) "Ada 83" is meaningless from a standards perspective; it should not be used in
-normative text.
+normative text. Besides, this title ("Renamings of Ada 83 Library Units") is wrong:
+we're not renaming Ada 83 library units,
+we're renaming Ada 95 units so that they can be used like Ada 83 library units.
+We could have used "Renamings of Library Units for compatibility with a Previous Version
+of this Standard", but that is excessively long and wordy. We could say something like this
+in a sentence before J.1(1), but it doesn't seem that important to say here (it is
+explained in AARM A(4.b)), as that standard is now quite old. 
 
 12) "exponent" refers to the syntax defined in 2.4.1, and should be in the syntax font.
 
@@ -191,6 +223,13 @@
 10.1.1(18) is the more general rule, so we remove the less general second sentence of
 10.1.1(17).
 
+14) This was obviously an editing error.
+
+15) This is an obvious cut-and-paste error.
+
+16) This is an objvious placement error. Note that this error is only in the RM, and
+not in the Amendment.
+
 !corrigendum 1.1.4(14.1/2)
 
 @drepl
@@ -219,6 +258,17 @@
 If a @fa<record_type_definition> includes the reserved word @b<limited>, the
 type is called an @i<explicitly limited record> type.
 
+!corrigendum 3.9.4(22/2)
+
+@drepl
+Queue_Error : @b<exception>;
+--@ft<@i< Append raises Queue_Error if Count(Q) = Max_Count(Q)>>
+--@ft<@i< Remove_First raises Queue_Error if Count(Q) = 0>>
+@dby
+Queue_Error : @b<exception>;
+--@ft<@i< Append raises Queue_Error if Cur_Count(Q) = Max_Count(Q)>>
+--@ft<@i< Remove_First raises Queue_Error if Cur_Count(Q) = 0>>
+
 !corrigendum 3.10.2(12.2/2)
 
 @drepl
@@ -335,6 +385,28 @@
 replaced by Wide_Wide_Bounded_String, and any occurrence of package Bounded
 is replaced by Wide_Wide_Bounded.
 
+!corrigendum A.18.7(58/2)
+
+@drepl
+@xindent<Union deletes from Target the elements of Target that are not
+equivalent some element of Source.>
+@dby
+@xindent<Intersection deletes from Target the elements of Target that are not
+equivalent some element of Source.>
+
+!corrigendum A.18.7(79/2)
+
+@ddel
+Equivalent to Find (Container, Item) /= No_Element.
+
+!corrigendum A.18.7(82/2)
+
+@dinsa
+@xcode<@b<function> Contains (Container : Set;
+                   Item      : Element_Type) @b<return> Boolean;>
+@dinst
+Equivalent to Find (Container, Item) /= No_Element.
+
 !corrigendum C.7.1(17/2)
 
 @drepl
@@ -366,8 +438,7 @@
 @drepl
 Renamings of Ada 83 Library Units
 @dby
-Renamings of Library Units from Previous Versions
-of this Standard
+Renamings of Library Units
 
 
 !ACATS test
@@ -586,4 +657,36 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+!topic [Count]{Cur_Count}
+!reference Ada 2005 RM 3.9.4(22/2)
+!from Niklas Holsti 07-01-24
+!discussion
+The example starting in paragraph 20/2 defines a limited interface type 
+Queue with a dispatching operation Cur_Count (among others). However, 
+the comment in paragraph 22/2 refers (twice) to "Count". I think this 
+should be "Cur_Count".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+!topic [Union]{Intersection}
+!reference Ada 2005 RMA.18.7(58/2)
+!from Niklas Holsti
+!discussion
+The referenced RM paragraph follows the declaration of procedure 
+Intersection, so it is evidently an editing mistake that the paragraph 
+starts with the word "Union". This should be "Intersection". The Union 
+procedure was described in paragraph 54/2.
 
+****************************************************************
+
+!topic Misplaced description of function Contains
+!reference Ada 2005 RMA.18.7(79/2)
+!from Niklas Holsti 07-01-24
+!discussion
+The referenced paragraph 79/2 seems to be misplaced; it follows the 
+paragraph that describes procedure Next. On the other hand, the function 
+Contains, declared in paragraph 82/2, has no following descriptive 
+paragraph. Paragraph 79/2 seems to describe function Contains so it 
+should be moved to lie between paragraphs 82/2 and 83/2.
+
+****************************************************************