!standard 6.6 (6)                                 11-11-11  AI05-0005-1/00
!class confirmation 11-11-11
!status received 11-11-11
!priority Low
!difficulty Easy
!qualifier Omission
!subject Editorial comments on AARM 2012

!summary

This AI serves as a holder for editorial comments on AARM-only
annotations. This AI serves the same purpose as AI95-00114 did for Ada 2005
and AI05-0005-1 did for Ada 2012. Because the AARM has no official status
as far as ISO is concerned, these will be considered low priority.

If a change cross-references this AI, find it in the Appendix below.

!question

!response

!appendix

From: John Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012  3:11 PM

...
Anyway, I just downloaded the latest version and hunting around for incomplete types
and generics, I came across 12.5(16.i/3). It refers to AI-215 instead of AI-213. Rats.

****************************************************************

From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013  9:26 PM

AARM 3.9(12.d/2) uses "privateness", which is not a word. Use "privacy" instead.

****************************************************************

From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013  9:26 PM

AARM 9.6.1(4.a/2) has two minor errors. First there is a word missing:

"... which are more than 12 hours {different }than UTC. ..."

Second, "southern" is misspelled (the last 'n') is missing.

****************************************************************

From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 1:21 AM

AARM 11.5(31.l/3) has a typo:

...inlining is never requir{ed}[ing],...

****************************************************************

From: Tucker Taft
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013   5:10 PM

I agree with both of you. [Editor's Note: The majority of this thread can be
found in AC-00248.]

The wording as given is inadequate, but the intent is
as Randy stated: you may assume that if you evaluate an assertion expression
once and it is True, you don't need to evaluate it again if all you are doing in
the mean time is evaluating assertion expressions.

***************************************************************

From: Steve Baird
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013   5:21 PM

I'm happy to leave it at that.

Let's either take no further action or, if anyone thinks it is worth the bother,
add a brief AARM note based on Tuck's words above.

[Editor's note: The AARM note is mentioned in AI12-0005-1.]

***************************************************************

From: John Barnes
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2013   9:13 AM

The package Ada.Dispatching was Pure in Ada 2005 but has been downgraded to
Preelaborable because of the addition of Yield. This is unlikely to be a
problem. (AI-166, D.2.1)

*** Incompatibility not mentioned in AARM

When an inherited subprogram is implemented by a protected function, the first
parameter has to be an in parameter, but not an access to variable type. Ada
2005 allowed access to variable parameters in this case; the parameter will
need to be changed to access to constant by the addition of the constant
keyword. (AI-291, 9.4)

*** this is a BI, but it doesn't say correction in AARM

***************************************************************

Editor's note (June  7, 2013): All of the items above this
marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.

****************************************************************