CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2008/05/10 05:14:33	1.16
+++ ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2008/07/12 03:58:22	1.17
@@ -1404,7 +1404,89 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
-Editor's note (April 28, 2008): All of the items above this
+!topic universal_access is not in the index
+!reference 3.4.1(6)
+!from Adam Beneschan 08-06-05
+!discussion
+
+Presentation issue: 3.4.1(6) says, "Universal types are defined for (and
+belong to) the integer, real, and fixed point, and access classes, and
+are referred to in this standard as respectively, universal_integer,
+universal_real, universal_fixed, and universal_access.
+
+universal_integer, universal_real, and universal_fixed are all listed
+in the index, but universal_access is not.  This is a problem, since
+I was planning to look in the RM to find out what the semantic
+ramifications of "universal_access" are, but the index doesn't tell me
+where any discussions of this might be.
+
+Specifically, I'd hope that the index entry for universal_access
+(assuming it does get added) should refer to 4.5.2(7.2) and/or 4.5.2(9.1).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008  12:11 AM
+
+!topic universal_access is not in the index ...
+
+Is this the dept. of redundancy department?? Some guy by the name of
+Adam Beneschan sent the following to this very list on November 6th, 2007:
+
+!topic universal_access not in index
+!reference RM05 index
+!from Adam Beneschan 07-11-06
+!discussion
+
+A very minor issue: In the index (at least the one available at
+http://www.adaic.org/standards/05aarm/html/AA-0-5.html), there are entries
+for universal_integer, universal_real, and universal_fixed, but not
+universal_access.  It seems that it should be there for consistency/completeness.
+
+---
+
+Let me make a couple of other points:
+
+The index is not technically part of the standard. So suggestions for the
+index are handled like AARM comments, and attached to AI05-0005-1. Moreover,
+I generally make those to the working version of the Standard immediately
+(like all AARM comments). So this was all handled back in November. Looking all
+of this up has wasted quite a bit of time, unfortunately.
+
+> Specifically, I'd hope that the index entry for universal_access 
+> (assuming it does get added)
+> should refer to 4.5.2(7.2) and/or 4.5.2(9.1).
+
+That would be inconsistent with the rest of the standard, for which we only
+index definitions, not uses. If we were to start indexing uses, there are many,
+many places where such indexes would be valuable (and that would imply a
+*lot* of work). For instance, I would like to see a list of all of the places
+where predefined routines raise (specific) exceptions (we do index
+language-defined checks). Most importantly, we'd want "definition" index entries
+to look different somehow than "use" index entries, which implies new commands
+and formatting for the formatting tool. A very slippery slope.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+!topic Clarification requested on Wide_Bounded_IO definition
+!reference A.11(4), A.10.11(3)
+!from Adam Beneschan 08-06-11
+!discussion
+
+A.11(4) says, when describing how to create the definition of Wide_Bounded_IO
+in terms of the Bounded_IO definition:
+
+   any occurrence of package Bounded is replaced by Wide_Bounded.
+
+Does this refer only to the "Bounded" package defined as a child of Ada.Strings,
+or does it also refer to the generic formal package that is a parameter
+of the generic Ada.Text_IO.Bounded_IO?  I suspect the answer is that it refers
+to both, but I think it's not 100% clear, and a clarification one way or the other
+would be useful.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+Editor's note (July 11, 2008): All of the items above this
 marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
 
 ****************************************************************