--- ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt 2011/04/01 04:54:08 1.36 +++ ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt 2011/04/02 07:30:35 1.37 @@ -2240,7 +2240,43 @@ **************************************************************** -Editor's note (March 31, 2011): All of the items above this +From: Christoph Grein +Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 2:28 AM + +!topic Extended membership test +!reference Ada 2005 AARM4.5.2(32.a/3), AI05-0158-1 +!from Christoph Grein 2011-04-01 +!discussion + +This is the formulation in AARM (draft 11): +X not in A | B | C is intended to be exactly equivalent to not X in A | B + +This is the formulation in the AI: +X not in A | B | C is intended to be exactly equivalent to not (X in A | B | C) + +Aren't the parens necessary because (not X) in A | B | C is also a valid +interpretation, at least for Boolean and modular types? How would the expression +without parens be resolved if both interpretations are legal? + +I see that this is also possible in the traditional form: + +not X in A .. B + +which will be evaluated as (not X) in A .. B if not X is a valid interpretation. + +**************************************************************** + +From: Randy Brukardt +Sent: Friday, April 1, 2011 2:37 PM + +> Aren't the parens necessary ... + +Looks like sloppy work by the editor (that would be me), nothing more. I'll get +it fixed. + +**************************************************************** + +Editor's note (April 1, 2011): All of the items above this marker have been included in the working version of the AARM. ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent