CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0159-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0159-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0159-1.txt	2015/03/24 22:23:26	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0159-1.txt	2015/03/25 23:15:02	1.2
@@ -1,5 +1,10 @@
-!standard 3.5.9(6)                                     15-03-23  AI05-0159-1/01
-!standard xx.xx(xx/x)
+!standard 3.5.9(6)                                     15-03-25  AI05-0159-1/02
+!standard 7.3.2(10/4)
+!standard 7.3.2(21/4)
+!standard 7.3.2(22.1/4)
+!standard 11.3(4.1/4)
+!standard A(3.1/4)
+!standard A.18.10(2/4)
 !class binding interpretation 15-03-23
 !status work item 15-03-23
 !status received 15-02-26
@@ -21,13 +26,22 @@
 
 (3) There is a missing "the" in 7.3.2(21/4). Should it be added? (Yes.)
 
+(4) In A.18.10(2/4), "consists of" would be better than "comprises of". 
+The comma after root node seems misplaced. Should these be changed? (Yes.)
+
+(5) In A(3.1/4), we have both "input-output" and "input/output". One of them
+must be wrong, right? (Yes.)
+
+(6) In 11.3(4.1/4), "rather than" sounds odd. Wouldn't "instead of" be better?
+
 !recommendation
 
 (See Summary.)
 
 !wording
 
-[Note: Remove the name of the reviewer once this is finished and approved.]
+[Note: Remove the name of the reviewer once this is finished and approved. It's
+here to speed discussion during the phone meeting.]
 
 (1)
 
@@ -59,7 +73,7 @@
 
 (3)
 
-Modified 7.3.2(21/4): [Moore]
+Modify 7.3.2(21/4): [Moore]
 
 If performing checks is required by the Type_Invariant or Type_Invariant'Class
 assertion policies (see 11.4.2) in effect at the point of {the} corresponding
@@ -70,7 +84,37 @@
 paragraph. It was a last-minute change in Ada 2012 that presumably didn't get
 reviewed enough. Thus this trivial change appears here.]
 
+(4)
+
+Modify A.18.10(2/4): [Barnes]
+
+A multiway tree container object manages a tree of nodes,
+{consisting}[comprising] of a root node {(see below)}, and {also} a set of
+internal nodes each of which contains an element and pointers to the parent,
+first child, last child, next (successor) sibling, and previous (predecessor)
+sibling internal nodes. A cursor designates a particular node within a tree
+(and by extension the element contained in that node, if any). A cursor keeps
+designating the same node (and element) as long as the node is part of the
+container, even if the node is moved within the container.
+
+(5)
+
+Modify A(3.1/4): [Barnes, Dismukes]
+
+For the purpose of determining whether concurrent calls on text input-output
+subprograms are required to perform as specified above, when calling a
+subprogram within Text_IO or its children that implicitly operates on one of the
+default input{-}[/]output files, the subprogram is considered to have a
+parameter of Current_Input or Current_Output (as appropriate).
 
+(6)
+
+Modify 11.3(4.1/4): [Taft, Barnes]
+
+If the evaluation of a string_expression or string_simple_expression raises an
+exception, that exception is propagated {instead of}[rather than] the one
+denoted by the exception_name of the raise_statement or raise_expression.
+
 !discussion
 
 (1) This appears to be an oversight.
@@ -79,6 +123,18 @@
 
 (3) Helps to edit. ;-)
 
+(4) "comprising of" is just weird. The comma after "root node" is also weird,
+but it is very important to the meaning (as the contents of the "root node"
+are defined in the next paragraph, it's not the list following "internal node").
+Thus we adjust the wording to clarify that, and leave the comma in place.
+
+(5) The standard usually uses "input-output" to describe files, libraries, etc.,
+not "input/output".
+
+(6) The RM/AARM uses "rather than" more often than "instead of". (175 occurrences
+to 55) Still, "instead of" sounds better to the Editor's ear as well as the
+commenter.
+
 
 !corrigendum 3.5.9(6)
 
@@ -318,5 +374,150 @@
 I think Randy was correct to raise this, for the reason he gave, though quietly
 writing up a trivial AI to insert the line might have avoided another long
 e-mail chain.  (Please don't continue it!)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Brad Moore
+Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015  1:36 PM
+
+7.3.2 (10.1/4)
+
+"After successful explicit initialization of the completion of a deferred
+constant with a part of type T, if the completion is inside the immediate
+scope of the full view of T[,] and the deferred constant is visible outside
+the immediate scope of T, the check is performed on the part(s) of type T;"
+
+I'm thinking comma that I've highlighted shouldn't be there. Am I right?
+
+7.3.2 (21/4)
+"If performing checks is required by the Type_Invariant or Type_Invariant'Class
+assertion policies (see 11.4.2) in effect at the point of {the} corresponding
+aspect specification applicable to a given type, then the respective invariant
+expression is considered enabled."
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015  8:36 PM
+
+7.3.2
+-----
+
+Change commas as indicated below, deleting one comma and inserting two:
+
+22.1/4  For an invariant check on a value of type T1 based on a class-wide
+        invariant expression inherited from an ancestor type T, any operations
+        within the invariant expression that were resolved as primitive
+        operations of the (notional) formal derived type NT[,] are{,} in the
+        evaluation of the invariant expression for the check on T1{,} bound to
+        the corresponding operations of type T1.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015  9:02 AM
+
+11.2(4.1/4). Tuck suggests changing "rather than" to "instead of".
+
+I am unsure as to whether I prefer "rather than" instead of 
+"instead of" or maybe "instead of" rather than "rather than". 
+ I think we need a global vote on this linguistic nicety. In 
+the first 100 pages of the AARM, rather than occurs 19 times 
+whereas instead of occurs only 4 times.
+
+Annex A
+
+A 3.1.4  Sometimes we have input-output and sometimes input/output. A survey of
+the RM as a whole shows that input-output dominates and that the casual uses of
+input/output are somewhat random. I suggest that in this para we replace
+input/output by input-output.
+
+I tried to search for input output (without hyphen or slash) but the wretched
+thing found those with hyphen or slash as well.
+
+A.18.10(2/4)  I would have preferred either "comprising" or "consisting of"
+rather than (perchance instead of) "comprising of". Fowler agrees with me. I
+should have noticed that at editorial review but I was grumbling about a comma
+then. But leave it, it's an example of the same sort of  construction as
+"inside of ".
+
+A.18.10(3/4)  I could mutter about "all of" rather than plain "all". Fowler
+says that including of is fairly modern (from 1800) but mostly unnecessary.
+All of the children sort of implies that one might consider just their arms
+and legs but not heads. However, all the children gives the feeling of
+completeness. Ignore me. But it does show that I am reading this stuff.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015  5:42 PM
+
+> A.18.10(2/4)  I would have preferred either "comprising" or "consisting of"
+> rather than (perchance instead of) "comprising of". Fowler agrees with 
+> me. I should have noticed that at editorial review but I was grumbling 
+> about a comma then. But leave it, it's an example of the same sort of  
+> construction as "inside of ".
+
+I agree that this should be just "comprising" or "consisting of" (I somewhat
+prefer the latter in this case).  I also dislike the position of the comma
+in the sentence in question.  I would change it as follows:
+
+  "... [comprising] {consisting} of a root node[,] and a set of internal
+   nodes{,} each of which contains an element and pointers to ..."
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015  5:37 PM
+
+Ah, but that would be wrong. A root node doesn't contain an element, only
+internal nodes do. This wording is a bit weird in that we never say what the
+root node contains (that's in the next paragraph), but that's intended.
+
+John grumbled about the same thing [during editorial review, years
+ago - Editor.], and I pointed out that the comma you want to delete is
+"*very* important". He jokingly suggested that it be in bold. :-)
+
+If we used parens to show the grouping here, it would be:
+
+... consisting of (a root node), and (a set of internal nodes each of which
+contains an element and pointers to ...)"
+
+Maybe adding "(see below)" would help point out the forward reference.
+
+   "... [comprising] {consisting} of a root node {(see below)}, and a set
+   of internal nodes each of which contains an element and pointers to ..."
+
+Dunno.
+
+Given that this is introductory wording of minimal value, I'd rather leave it
+subtle than hack around on it much more. But you'll get a chance on Thursday
+(since the wording is already ARG approved).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015  5:42 PM
+
+> I agree that this should be just "comprising" or "consisting
+> of" (I somewhat prefer the latter in this case).
+
+I think you should always avoid the word comprising, because of its legal
+term-of-art meaning, which is including, but not limited to ...
+
+so if you want to give a list intended to be exhaustive, always use consisting
+of ..
+
+His fleet of cars comprising two fords and three toyotas.
+
+(his fleet actually has 72 toyota's, but the use of comprising is still
+legally correct).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2015  2:57 AM
+
+Maybe "and also" rather than just "and" after the bold comma would help
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent