CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt

Differences between 1.9 and version 1.10
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt	2016/10/06 00:45:55	1.9
+++ ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt	2016/10/06 04:09:17	1.10
@@ -1439,6 +1439,98 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Florian Schanda
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  5:13 AM
+
+> PLEASE do not get in the habit of just updating the wording and 
+> leaving the rest of it to the poor editor. The wording is often the 
+> easy part! And I am not good at guessing what your intent is (which is 
+> what goes in the discussion). I'll fix up headers and file e-mail, but
+> that's it.
+
+Oh, right. I think I suffered from a mis-understanding then. I was imagining
+I was told off before for changing the rest; so if its OK to change the bit 
+before the wording then I shall do that!
+
+I do want to be a good citizen :)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016  9:24 PM
+
+> Oh, right. I think I suffered from a mis-understanding then. 
+> I was imagining I was told off before for changing the rest; so if its 
+> OK to change the bit before the wording then I shall do that!
+
+Well, the !question (or !problem) should generally be left alone unless you
+have explicit instructions to change them. It's the !summary, !proposal, and
+!discussion (which FOLLOWS the wording) that should be updated if they
+conflict in some way with the proposed wording.
+
+> I do want to be a good citizen :)
+
+Thanks. I realize your example for AIs was that Heave Beard guy, which is like
+using Wally from Dibert's office as a model for hard work. :-) ("Heave Beard"
+is good about one thing -- doing his homework early. I think he thinks that
+gives me more time to finish it for him. ;-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Florian Schanda
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  9:14 AM
+
+> But... I worry that we are referencing the semantics of 'Old and 
+> build-in-place in the  dynamic semantics section.  I could see 
+> mentioning them in an AARM note.  But expecting the reader, as an aid 
+> to understanding the dynamic semantics of delta aggregates, to have to 
+> look forward to the definition of 'Old, followed by a perusal of the 
+> build-in-place rules, seems downright perverse! ;-)  You have these 
+> references in brackets, so I presume that means this is redundant 
+> information and hence not necessary to appear in normative RM text 
+> here. If so, I heartily suggest that the bracketed wording move to an AARM
+> note.
+
+Yes, this is in square brackets (in the style of the SPARK RM). But really
+for the Ada RM this should be an AARM clarification/note/something.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Florian Schanda
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  9:20 AM
+
+> For a delta aggregate the expression in a record_component_association 
+> or a array_component_association shall not be of a limited type.
+> 
+> Which expression is being discussed here? I'd guess that it is 
+> supposed to be the *base*_expression, and if that's the intent, this 
+> rule should say that. (Use the prefix if you go through the trouble to 
+> define it!) [P.S. I took the extra comma out of  your version.]
+
+No, it really does mean the expression in each
+record_component_association_list or array_component_association_list.
+The base_expression can be of a limited type.
+
+What we wanted to stop was having an assignment to a component that is
+of limited type.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Florian Schanda
+Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016  9:21 AM
+
+> In the examples, you need cross-references to where the objects/types 
+> are declared elsewhere in the RM. For instance, the first example 
+> should have something like "(See x.x.x for the declaration of D.)" as 
+> part of the comment. I'm not going to try to figure out where an 
+> object named "D" is declared in the RM! (Searching doesn't work for 
+> obvious reasons.)
+
+Ok, I've done this. I'll send an updated version tomorrow that will
+include these references.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Florian Schanda
 Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016  6:10 AM
 
 Homework (attempt 2) for AI12-0127-1 (delta aggregates) [This is version /05

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent