CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0215-1.txt

Differences between 1.5 and version 1.6
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0215-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0215-1.txt	2011/03/17 04:37:40	1.5
+++ ai05s/ai05-0215-1.txt	2011/03/17 06:27:55	1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard  9.5(10-18/3)                            11-03-17    AI05-0215-1/03
+!standard  9.5(10-18/3)                            11-03-17    AI05-0215-1/04
 !standard  9.5.4(3/3)
 !standard  9.5.4(5/3)
 !standard  9.5.4(5.1/3)
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 !priority Low
 !difficulty Easy
 !qualifier Omission
-!subject Errors in AI05-0030-2
+!subject Pragma Implemented should be an aspect (and better defined)
 !summary
 
 The aspect Is_Synchronized is introduced as the proper way of specifying how
@@ -44,6 +44,9 @@
 
     Similar problems arise in 9.5.4(5/3).
 
+(4) We're changing many pragmas to be primarily aspects; it seems that
+    pragma Implemented should be an aspect as well.
+
 !recommendation
 
 (See Summary.)
@@ -419,6 +422,126 @@
 Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011  3:36 PM
 
 Not to mention By_Mistake and By_Pure_Luck.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011  2:31 PM
+
+> AI05-0215-1: (see minutes of meeting #42)
+
+There is no mention of 0215 in the October minutes. Bob had the same reaction in
+January, and then went on to propose different values for the corresponding
+aspect. Given that this is a correction of another AI, should we just withdraw
+AI05-030 (even though WG9 approved)  and rewrite it without the Implemented
+pragma (no one uses it yet) and with the new Aspect Implemented_By?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011  2:50 PM
+
+> There is no mention of 0215 in the October minutes.
+
+Sorry, it was the November phone meeting. But that doesn't say much:
+
+Ed will take this one, and convert it to an aspect, removing the pragma.
+[Editor's note: change the subject when this is done, and add a question to this
+effect.] Is the name "Implemented" good? We don't have a better idea, and
+typical formatting puts the aspect by itself on the left. Bob thinks the name is
+too general; he will take this off-line and try to come with a better name.
+"Implemented_By_Entry" as a boolean aspect is a thought. "Implemented_By_Entry
+=> False" is really "maybe", not "no", so that isn't perfect. We'll let Bob
+think about this.
+
+[End of November minutes.]
+
+> Bob had
+> the same reaction in January, and then went on to propose different
+> values for the corresponding aspect.
+
+That was Bob responding to the action item above.
+
+> Given that
+> this is a correction of another AI, should we just withdraw AI05-030
+> (even though WG9 approved)  and rewrite it without the Implemented
+> pragma (no one uses it yet) and with the new Aspect Implemented_By?
+
+I don't think we want to withdraw it completely, since quite a bit of it will be
+unchanged. (Certainly all of the stuff about Requeue has no reason to change.)
+
+So I think you should just write up this AI saying that it is replacing
+paragraphs whatever to whenever. But we're not going to "withdraw" a WG 9
+approved AI (even if this one ends up rewriting 90% of the paragraphs -- which I
+doubt).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011  3:51 PM
+
+> > Bob had
+> > the same reaction in January, and then went on to propose different
+> > values for the corresponding aspect.
+>
+> That was Bob responding to the action item above.
+
+I still pretty-much hate the name Implemented (or Implemented_By), for the
+reasons I already mentioned.
+
+Tucker's suggestion ("Tuesday, January 25, 2011  8:49 AM", in the !appendix)
+seems perfect to me:
+
+Is_Synchronized => By_Entry
+Is_Synchronized => By_Protected_Procedure
+Is_Synchronized [=> True]
+Is_Synchronized => False
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011  4:20 PM
+
+I agree with this choice, that should be the name and the legal values of the
+new aspect.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011  4:31 PM
+
+Fine by me, and since you are writing it up, you get to make the recommended
+choice anyway. If someone wants a choice other than the one you make, *they* can
+write it up. That should minimize the alternatives proposed. ;-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011  4:41 PM
+
+> > Is_Synchronized => By_Entry
+> > Is_Synchronized => By_Protected_Procedure Is_Synchronized [=> True]
+> > Is_Synchronized => False
+>
+> I agree with this choice, that should be the name and the legal values
+> of the new aspect.
+
+Note that True and False here, are not values of type Boolean.
+They are "identifiers specific to an aspect".  That's not a problem, just a
+language-lawyerly oddity.
+
+It means you can't say:
+
+    Is_Synchronized => Boolean'(False)
+    Is_Synchronized => Standard.False
+
+    X : constant Boolean := False;
+    ...
+    Is_Synchronized => X
+
+If you don't like that, I suppose you could define an enumeration type
+(By_Entry, By_Protected_Procedure, True, False), or perhaps (By_Entry,
+By_Protected_Procedure, Yes, No). But I wouldn't bother with that.
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent