CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0124-1.txt
--- ai05s/ai05-0124-1.txt 2010/04/02 19:13:28 1.2
+++ ai05s/ai05-0124-1.txt 2010/06/07 06:04:14 1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 11.5(7.1/2) 10-04-02 AI05-0124-1/02
+!standard 11.5(7.1/2) 10-06-07 AI05-0124-1/03
!standard 11.5(20)
!class ramification 10-02-28
!status ARG Approved 10-0-0 10-02-28
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
!summary
-It not specified where an elaboration check is suppressed.
+It is not specified where an elaboration check is suppressed.
!question
@@ -54,8 +54,8 @@
!response
The model of checking pragmas applying specifically to entities was made
-obsolescent in Ada 2005. Other than the obsolescent forms, such pragmas
-apply to everything in a region of text.
+obsolescent in Ada 2005 (see J.10). Other than the obsolescent forms, such
+pragmas apply to everything in a region of text.
In this case, the use of "entity" is unfortunate, because that is a technical
term that doesn't include expressions like calls. That could be taken to
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
call site to do a version of entity-level suppression (even though the
intent of Ada 2005 was that that would not need to be supported). And
doing so would make suppression of all kinds of entities much less
-predictable. Do we really want the suppress in the following to be
+predictable. Do we really want the Suppress in the following to be
always ignored?
Data : array (1..20) of ...;
@@ -88,9 +88,9 @@
return Data (Index);
end Get_It;
-In this case, the scope of the suppress pragma does not include any
+In this case, the scope of the Suppress pragma does not include any
entities in the technical sense ("items that are declared"). Following
-the strict reading suggested by the question would mean that pragma
+the strict reading suggested by the question would mean that the pragma
would not suppress anything.
Another alternative would be to change the wording in 11.5(7.1/2) to
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent