CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0246-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0246-1.txt	2011/03/17 02:39:16	1.1
+++ ai05s/ai05-0246-1.txt	2011/03/17 07:06:30	1.2
@@ -170,4 +170,53 @@
 
 !appendix
 
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011  8:44 PM
+
+The one thing that worries me about version /01 of this AI is changing the
+clause number of the Ravenscar profile stuff. I don't know how many error
+messages point there (as opposed to the constituent restrictions), but it seems
+like there could be quite a few, and as such it seems dubious.
+
+Of course you are right that the entire profile thing ought to have been
+declared in 13.12 in the first place, but I wonder if we should just leave D.13
+as essentially empty in order to avoid changing the unrelated D.13.1.
+
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011  9:06 PM
+
+This seems like a lousy reason to leave the manual incorrectly organized.  Also,
+GNAT doesn't use RM clause numbers very often in their error messages, and since
+they are probably the only compiler that has implemented the Ravenscar profile
+at this point, it doesn't seem like a big deal.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011  9:16 PM
+
+I admit that part of the reason I don't like this reorganization is that I don't
+have any way to change a subclause to a clause in the current RM tools, and I
+can't quite imagine one that would make any sense whatsoever. Maybe something
+will come to mind, but most likely we'd have to abandon the capability of
+generating older standards completely. (I've occasionally used that to improve
+the HTML that is available on-line for the older standards.)
+
+Not a big deal; I'm more concerned about unnecessary changes that might affect
+users. (We've already had one complaint about the way we renumbered the
+containers packages, and I can't quite figure out why anyone would care for
+predefined packages.)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011  9:19 PM
+
+Furthermore,  errors on some violation of a profile point to the configuration
+file that names the profile, and not to the RM at all, so this is a non-issue in
+the case of GNAT.
+
+****************************************************************
+