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

--- ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt	2020/01/14 05:15:42	1.33
+++ ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt	2020/03/10 05:16:13	1.34
@@ -1947,11 +1947,94 @@
 
 ***************************************************************
 
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020  2:09 PM
 
+[A response to another thread, we only include the relevant part here,
+the full thread can be found in AC-00326 - Editor.]
 
+A collection is an abstract concept, and it represents all of the objects 
+created by an allocator for a given access type (or any of its descendants).
+There is only one collection per access type, even if there are multiple 
+subpools. Unfortunately, the AARM implementation note 7.6.1(20.e.3) uses 
+the term "collection" in a different sense, probably meant to convey a 
+linked list of objects that hangs off a header associated with the access 
+type, so the allocated objects that still exist can all be found and 
+finalized at the end of the scope of the access type.
 
+...
 
-Editor's note (January 10, 2020): All of the items above this
+The problem, as mentioned above, is that this AARM note is not using the 
+term "collection" properly, but rather using it as a short-hand for 
+something like a linked list of allocated objects.  The last 
+sentence of that note currently says:
+
+   "This is expected to ease implementation, as the objects will only need to 
+   belong to the subpool and not also to the collection." 
+
+Instead, it should probably say:
+
+   "This is expected to ease implementation, as the remaining un-deallocated 
+   objects will only need to be accessible at run time from the subpool header 
+   rather than from the overall access type collection header."
+
+***************************************************************
+
+!topic Incorrect references in index to Bounded_IO and Unbounded_IO
+!reference Ada 202x 2012 2005 RM index
+!from Manuel Gómez Rojo 20-02-28
+!keywords inconsistent naming index Wide_Text_IO Wide_Wide_Text_IO Bounded_IO Unbounded_IO
+!discussion
+
+The following package names are referenced in the index:
+
+ Ada.Wide_Text_IO.Bounded_IO   A.11(4/3)
+ Ada.Wide_Text_IO.Unbounded_IO   A.11(5/3)
+ 
+ Ada.Wide_Wide_Text_IO.Bounded_IO   A.11(4/3)
+ Ada.Wide_Wide_Text_IO.Unbounded_IO   A.11(5/3)
+
+
+But in A.11 the package names repeat Wide(_Wide) at the 
+grandchildren level:
+
+ 4/3
+ The specification of package Wide_Text_IO.Wide_Bounded_IO is the same as[...]
+ 
+ 5/3
+ The specification of package Wide_Text_IO.Wide_Unbounded_IO is the same as[...]
+
+Given that the index is not normative, it should be amended in this way:
+
+ Ada.Wide_Text_IO.{Wide_}Bounded_IO   A.11(4/3)
+ Ada.Wide_Text_IO.{Wide_}Unbounded_IO   A.11(5/3)
+ 
+ Ada.Wide_Wide_Text_IO.{Wide_Wide_}Bounded_IO   A.11(4/3)
+ Ada.Wide_Wide_Text_IO.{Wide_Wide_}Unbounded_IO   A.11(5/3)
+
+Specific index of library units in A is already consistent.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020  10:44 PM
+
+Wide_Wide_ nonsense strikes again! It would have been nice if Ada was 
+consistent about whether or not to repeat Wide_Wide_, but it isn't. I'm
+looking forward to Wide_Wide_Wide_Strings and associated operations. ;-)
+
+Thanks for finding and reporting this; we can't fix bugs we don't know 
+about.
+
+Since the index is not normative, this just gets stuck in the AI of 
+non-normative corrections (AI12-0005-1) and the correction gets made to 
+the master copy. So it will be made the next time that an RM/AARM draft is 
+posted.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+
+Editor's note (March 3, 2020): All of the items above this
 marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
 
 ****************************************************************