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

--- ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2009/03/21 02:26:03	1.22
+++ ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2009/04/30 06:19:47	1.23
@@ -1904,7 +1904,83 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
-Editor's note (Mar 18, 2009): All of the items above this
+From: Christoph Grein
+Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2009  4:12 AM [No joke!]
+
+Editorial comments (missing spaces between words, grammar mistakes
+etc...) [on Draft 7 - ED]
+
+3.9.3(4/3) ... result, or if a type other than a non-abstract{ }null extension...
+3.9.3(10/3) ... controlling result or a controlling access result{ }shall not...
+
+6.5(24.a/3) ... The intention is that the exception is raised at {the} same point
+that it would have been raised without the permission;
+
+Question: 6.5(24.a/3) replaces build-in-place by built-in-place, but
+(24.d/3) keeps it. Is this intended?
+
+6.6(6/3) An explicit declaration of "=" whose result type is Boolean implicitly
+declares an operator [of] "/=" that gives the complementary result.
+6.6(6.a/3) There is an index entry "Number of the Beast". ??? You're reading too much
+in the Holy Bible - Ada was not a prophet, or was she? :-)
+
+7.3.1(3/3) ... operators are implicitly declared at that place.{ }If there is no such place, ...
+
+10.1.1(12.g.1/3) ... a discriminant_part even if the [the] type_declaration does have one.
+
+A.18.17(23/3) ... they guard against certain actions by the designated subprogram[.]{;} in
+particular, ...
+A.18.17(30.a/3) ... However, the order and number of calls on the formal equality function
+is unspecified, [so an implementation does not need to call ]so an implementation need not call ...
+
+3.7(10.h.1/3) Any type may have an access discriminant, but access discriminants may
+have defaults only if they are an immutably {limited} type.
+
+Remark: <a "really" limited> was deleted and was meant to be replaced by <immutably limited>,
+but <limited> was also inadvertantly deleted.
+
+BTW: Can a discriminant be a type? I presume the sentence should be:
+... if they are {of} an immutably {limited} type
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Friday, April 3, 2009  9:50 PM
+
+> Question: 6.5(24.a/3) replaces build-in-place by built-in-place, but
+> (24.d/3) keeps it. Is this intended?
+
+I don't think so; the next line uses "built-in-place". Probably incorrect muscle memory.
+ 
+...
+> 6.6(6.a/3) There is an index entry "Number of the Beast". ??? 
+> You're reading too much in the Holy Bible - Ada was not a 
+> prophet, or was she?
+> :-)
+
+I'm just keeping up the tradition of joke index entries. But I'm probably not as funny as
+Bob Duff.
+
+Look up "unpolluted" in the AARM's index for an example.
+
+...
+
+> A.18.17(23/3) ... they guard against certain actions by the 
+> designated subprogram[.]{;} in particular, ...
+
+According to the AI, and according to the practice in the other clauses, this is supposed to
+start a sentence. That means that the problem is one of capitalization, not punctuation.
+
+> A.18.17(30.a/3) ... However, the order and number of calls on 
+> the formal equality function is unspecified, [so an 
+> implementation does not need to call ]so an implementation 
+> need not call ...
+
+The AI was wrong on this one, having the dept. of redundancy department wording.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+Editor's note (April 3, 2009): All of the items above this
 marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
 
 ****************************************************************