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

--- ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2012/01/27 23:23:09	1.43
+++ ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2012/02/04 09:07:37	1.44
@@ -2705,6 +2705,18 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Jean-Pierre Rosen
+Sent: Monday, January 2, 2012  8:20 AM
+
+[Just the relevant parts of a larger review. - Editor]
+
+9.7.2(7.b/2)
+(Another old typo)
+   A procedure can be used as the {target} in a timed or conditional
+   entry call
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Bob Duff
 Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012  7:55 PM
 
@@ -2772,8 +2784,46 @@
 ["all" is missing before "access values" - Editor.]
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012  1:22 PM
+
+[Just the relevant parts of a larger review. - Editor]
+
+A.18.2(97.b/3)
+    To be honest: This function [may] {might} not detect cursors that
+    designate deleted elements; such cursors are invalid (see below) and
+    the result of calling Has_Element with an invalid cursor is
+    unspecified (but not erroneous).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012  11:55 PM
+
+This particular note is from Ada 2005; it was moved along with the subprogram (else it would
+not appear new).
+
+Just to review (I know Tucker knows this): "may not" shall not be used in ISO standards.
+It's not strictly banned from AARM notes, but it probably shouldn't be used anywhere, just
+to follow good habits. (ISO wants "need not"
+
+So I started a scrub of the standard to eliminate any lingering "may nots". But I found too many
+uses to bother with, especially after I found uses in normative text: A.5.1(18), G.1.1(38),
+and a note A.5.2(50). There also are a couple of places where the form "may or may not" is used
+(see G.2(1)); that's hard to replace. 11.6(5.d-f) has a bunch of "may not"s that really should
+be "must not"s, but that hardly helps (since we're not supposed to use "must", either, and
+neither "shall" or "can" have the right meaning, IMHO.)
+
+Even so, I changed "may not" to "might not" except as noted in the following:
+1.1.2(39.n/2), 1.1.2(39.q/2), 1.1.2(39.t/2), 1.1.2(39.aa/3), 1.1.2(39.dd/3), 1.1.2(39.gg/3),
+4.1.3(7.a/1) ("cannot"), 7.6.1(11.m/3) ("need not"), A.5.2(61.b/2), A.12.1(36.a/2),
+A.18.2(97.b/3), A.18.3(69.c/3), A.18.4(19.c/3), A.18.7(18.c/3), A.18.10(92.a/3), D.2.1(17.a/2),
+D.2.2(6.a/2), D.2.2(21.a/2), H.4(1.a), H.4(27.a).
+
+****************************************************************
 
-Editor's note (January 21, 2012): All of the items above this
+Editor's note (January 27, 2012): All of the items above this
 marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
 
 ****************************************************************