CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt	2015/11/18 01:22:59	1.18
+++ ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt	2016/04/12 04:48:38	1.19
@@ -748,7 +748,134 @@
 
 ***************************************************************
 
-Editor's note (May 31, 2015): All of the items above this
+!topic Ruined paragraph
+!reference 2012 RM3.10.2(20)
+!from Christoph Grein 16-02-19
+!discussion
+
+This paragraph is a bullet with an incomplete sentence.
+This is the previous version:
+
+For determining whether one level is statically deeper than another when
+within a generic package body, the generic package is presumed to be
+instantiated at the same level as where it was declared; run-time checks
+are needed in the case of more deeply nested instantiations.
+
+This is the new content:
+
+or generic function F
+
+It looks like an error - there is no reason to insert "generic function" in
+this paragraph - and also no /4 indication.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016  11:33 PM
+
+There's a chunk of junk in the consolidated RM that gets its own paragraph
+number (as would happen with any junk floating around); there's nothing wrong
+with the actual text (it just moved down one paragraph).
+
+Since the problem is only in the consolidated RM (and not in the Corrigendum
+or Ada 2012 Standard, the official documents), we just mention it here and
+fix it without further ado. [Unfortunately, Christoph then raised some further
+ado - Editor.]
+
+***************************************************************
+
+!topic Ruined paragraph
+!reference 2012 RM3.10.2(20)
+!from Christoph Grein 16-03-24
+!discussion
+
+I resend this since I've never received a reply from the list, so I suspect
+the mail was lost somehow.
+
+The error is in the version
+   http://ada-auth.org/standards/rm12_w_tc1/RM-Final.pdf
+but not in
+  http://ada-auth.org/standards/aarm12_w_tc1/html/AA-3-10-2.html
+
+Oh, now I see: the paragraph (20) is erroneously present. When removed, the
+text is correct again.
+
+
+I haven't checked the other versions.
+-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
+Betreff:  Ruined paragraph 
+Datum:  Fri, 19 Feb 2016 13:08:56 +0100 
+Von:  Christoph Grein
+
+!topic Ruined paragraph
+!reference 2012 RM3.10.2(20)
+!from Christoph Grein 16-02-19
+!discussion
+
+This paragraph is a bullet with an incomplete sentence.
+This is the previous version:
+
+For determining whether one level is statically deeper than another when
+within a generic package body, the generic package is presumed to be
+instantiated at the same level as where it was declared; run-time checks are
+needed in the case of more deeply nested instantiations.
+
+This is the new content:
+
+or generic function F
+
+It looks like an error - there is no reason to insert "generic function" in
+this paragraph - and also no /4 indication.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016  11:37 PM
+
+>	I resend this since I've never received a reply from the list, so I
+suspect the mail was lost somehow.
+
+I didn't think that it needed a reply.
+
+> Oh, now I see: the paragraph (20) is erroneously present.
+> When removed, the text is correct again.
+	
+Right, just a chunk of floating junk. I'd guess that I cached a copy of a
+change block while I was inserting changes, and forgot to get rid of it when
+done (that happens periodically, I just usually see it before anything gets
+issued). The way the formatter works, anything at all gets a paragraph number.
+[I've seen a single square bracket with a paragraph number.]
+
+Since it only appears in the consolidated RM and AARM (but not the Ada 2012
+Standard or Corrigendum), no formal action is needed. I repaired the source
+files and regenerated the HTML (which is easy) - which is why the error has
+magically disappeared from the online HTML. Regenerating the PDFs takes 4-6
+hours (each needs a set of hand-repairs, and the only software that can make
+the PDF without crashing is on a very slow ancient machine -- and there is 7
+different PDF files). So I thought I'd wait until some time had passed for any
+other errors to be reported.
+
+We have a tool that compares RM and Corrigendum text, but it only compares
+paragraphs that are supposed to have been changed. So it can't find extra junk
+(nor can it find paragraphs left out of the Corrigendum, another annoyance).
+Still is a lot better than nothing.
+
+P.S. Was this reply long enough? ;-)
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Christoph Grein
+Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016  9:30 AM
+
+> P.S. Was this reply long enough? ;-)
+
+Oh sure, by Jove!
+
+(I meant however the automatic list reply which I received this time.)
+
+***************************************************************
+
+Editor's note (March 31, 2016): All of the items above this
 marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
 
 ****************************************************************