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

Differences between 1.5 and version 1.6
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2007/01/19 04:00:06	1.5
+++ ai05s/ai05-0005-1.txt	2007/01/23 05:35:41	1.6
@@ -181,3 +181,106 @@
+From: Robert A. Duff
+Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007   3:43 PM
+I just got my "author's copies" of the Ada RM published by Springer.  Thank
+you, Randy.  And my name, and several others, appear prominently on the cover.
+However, I have a concern:  The name "Jean Ichbiah" appears nowhere, as far as I
+can tell, in the RM nor AARM.  This seems like an outrageous lack of proper
+attribution.  Is there some way to correct it, at this late date?
+What about the members of JDI's team?  The "Acknowledgments" sections of this
+document commemerate many people -- but the pre-95 folks are left out.
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007   4:55 PM
+I don't remember what process was used to produce the "front
+material" of the Ada 95 standard.  But if you look at it
+in comparison to the Ada 83 "green book," the Ada 83
+"foreword" which was effectively the acknowledgments
+was not officially part of the standard (or at least that
+is what it says at the bottom of the page).  In the Ada 95
+standard, the "foreword" is some boilerplate provided by
+ISO, and makes no acknowledgments to authors.  There is
+an "acknowledgments" page in the Ada 95 standard, but since
+there was no direct equivalent in the Ada 83 standard, I
+suspect it was developed from scratch, and I think we presumed
+it was obvious that this was an acknowledgment about the
+revision process, not about the original standard.
+It does seem a bit unfortunate that there is no acknowledgment
+to the original Ada language team, but I certainly don't
+feel anyone should blame Randy for the current situation.
+If anyone goofed, it was the Ada 9X team.
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007   3:41 AM
+> What about the members of JDI's team?  The "Acknowledgments" 
+> sections of this document commemerate many people -- but the 
+> pre-95 folks are left out.
+I definitely agree.  I actually find it quite outrageous that the original
+team is not mentioned (I am not blaming anyone, I'm sure it was not on
+purpose, but it's certainly unfair).
+What do we do about this?  We are certainly not going to reprint the paper
+copies.  I would also object to modifying the PDF and HTML files, since it
+is essential that they remain as close as possible to the printed version.
+We took extra steps (e.g., publishing SHA-1 signatures) to ensure that
+people would not be confused about which version is the "right" one.  We
+don't want to start changing those files at the drop of a hat.
+My view is that if you make a mistake, the best you can do is to own up to
+it.  My suggestion would be add on the official page for the Ada 05 RM
+( a blurb like:
+"The development of Ada 95 and Ada 2005 would of course have been
+impossible without the strong foundation provided by Ada 83.  As part of
+the numerous rounds of edits on the Reference Manual, the acknowledgments
+regarding the design team for the original language were unfortunately
+lost.  We apologize for this error.  The acknowledgment section for the
+Ada 83 language can be found <here>."
+Where the last word would hyperlink to a page containing the text of the
+acknowledgment section of RM 83.
+[Editor's note: A short acknowledgement based on the Ada 83 Foreword should
+be added in front of the Ada 95 acknowledgement. This is recorded here as
+this is text which does not appear in the actual Standard, so it shouldn't
+be mentioned in a real AI.]
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007   8:53 PM
+The mail on AI05-0037 says (on the topic of whether <> needs to be added to any
+existing aggregate wording):
+4.3.3(23) worried me a bit, but I concluded it is already OK. <> means the
+component "initialized by default". If there are multiple associated components,
+each one will be initialized by default (and if that means that each component
+ends up with a different value, so be it). It doesn't say that one component
+is initialized by default, and then others are copied from it.
+4.3.1(20) also appears worrisome. But here it doesn't make sense to talk
+about "for each associated component" in the case of <>, because we're
+considering the value of <> for each individual associated component. (see
+4.3.1(19.1/2)). And each component has its own default expression or its own
+default initialization. After all, even the types of the components can be
+different for a single association.
+It might make sense to add an AARM note to make that point clear (for both
+4.3.1(20) and 4.3.3(23)), but I don't think any wording changes are needed.

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent