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

--- ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2011/08/17 00:24:10	1.38
+++ ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2011/09/29 06:34:01	1.39
@@ -2336,7 +2336,72 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
-Editor's note (August 10, 2011): All of the items above this
+From: Brad Moore
+Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2011  1:14 AM
+
+AARM Specific comments
+
+[Editor's note: Only those affecting text from previous versions of the Standard are
+included here.]
+
+A.5.3 (62.a) "All of the primitive function attributes except 
+Rounding and Machine correspond to subprograms in the 
+Generic_Primitive_Functions generic package proposed as a 
+separate ISO standard (ISO/IEC DIS 11729) for Ada 83."
+Is this still true? Presumably if it hasn't happend by now, 
+it aint gonna happen.
+
+A.10.9 (35.a) What about Wide_Wide values?
+
+A.10.10 (11.a) What about Wide_Wide characters?
+
+A.10.10 (14.a) What about Wide_Wide characters?
+
+A.16 (106.a/2) "*Ramification: *The only way that a call to 
+End_Search could be unsuccessful {would be} if Device_Error 
+(see A.13 <http://AA-A-13.html/>) is raised because of an 
+underlying failure (or bug). "
+
+E.2.2 (17.a/2) "*Reason: *All three of these restrictions are because " 
+
+The list above has 6 bullets of restrictions, the last bullet 
+(17/2) has 5 parts, so what do they mean when they say "all three"
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011  9:14 PM
+
+> A.5.3 (62.a) "All of the primitive function attributes except 
+> Rounding and Machine correspond to subprograms in the 
+> Generic_Primitive_Functions generic package proposed as a 
+> separate ISO standard (ISO/IEC DIS 11729) for Ada 83."
+> Is this still true? Presumably if it hasn't happend by now, 
+> it aint gonna happen.
+
+I think we killed all of those Ada 83 standards in favor of the Ada 95
+definitions. But if you read this as discussing ancient history (and anything
+involving Ada 83 is ancient history), it still seems valid. It probably would
+be slightly better if it said "...generic package {that was} proposed as ...",
+so I made that change.
+
+> A.10.9 (35.a) What about Wide_Wide values?
+
+The permission is question is wording naming all three attributes, so I rewrote this
+note to match.
+
+> E.2.2 (17.a/2) "*Reason: *All three of these restrictions are because " 
+> 
+> The list above has 6 bullets of restrictions, the last bullet 
+> (17/2) has 5 parts, so what do they mean when they say "all three"
+
+The number comes from the Ada 95 notes, but even then it doesn't make sense (there are
+four bullets in Ada 95). I just dropped the number.
+
+
+****************************************************************
+
+Editor's note (September 30, 2011): All of the items above this
 marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
 
 ****************************************************************