CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0208-1.txt

Differences between 1.18 and version 1.19
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0208-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0208-1.txt	2019/02/02 01:14:04	1.18
+++ ai12s/ai12-0208-1.txt	2019/02/07 06:31:29	1.19
@@ -5722,7 +5722,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Steve Baird
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   2:51 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   2:51 PM
 
 The attached version #5 of this AI [Regardless of what this message says,
 this is version /07 of this AI - Editor] is intended to address
@@ -5951,7 +5951,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   3:13 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   3:13 PM
 
 > 5) ...
 >
@@ -5975,7 +5975,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Steve Baird
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   5:02 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   5:02 PM
 
 > I think exponentiation is really a special case, and Standard.Integer
 > should be the exponent for X ** <int>.
@@ -5990,7 +5990,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   5:16 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   5:16 PM
 
 Remember that Ada only requires Integer'Last >= 32767, and 2 ** 32768 isn't
 completely impossible.
@@ -5998,14 +5998,14 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   5:28 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   5:28 PM
 
 I'm not worried about this particular issue, personally. ;-)
 
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   3:20 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   3:20 PM
 
 > 4) Change names?
 >     Big_Integer => Optional_Big_Integer
@@ -6035,7 +6035,7 @@
 
 
 From: Steve Baird
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   4:36 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   4:36 PM
 
 > So I would stick with "Is_Valid" if the named constant is "Invalid."
 
@@ -6050,7 +6050,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   4:56 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   4:56 PM
 
 >> So I would stick with "Is_Valid" if the named constant is "Invalid."
 
@@ -6065,7 +6065,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
-Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2018   8:12 PM
+Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019   8:12 PM
 
 > I'd say those functions should be named
 > Null_Big_Integer and Null_Big_Rational.
@@ -6076,7 +6076,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   3:32 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   3:32 PM
 
 > 13) Is the standard "No storage .. shall be lost" implementation
 > requirement what we want here? For example, does this wording preclude
@@ -6115,7 +6115,7 @@
 ***************************************************************
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   4:01 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   4:01 PM
 
 > I think we can leave the wording about "No storage shall be lost" as
 > is.  We could add an AARM note clarifying that this is intended to
@@ -6181,7 +6181,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Monday, January 7, 2018   5:00 PM
+Sent: Monday, January 7, 2019   5:00 PM
 
 >> ...
 >
@@ -6207,7 +6207,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
-Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2018   7:56 PM
+Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019   7:56 PM
 
 > The attached version #5 of this AI is intended to address
 > issues/questions raised since distribution of version #4 on 12/2/18.
@@ -6300,7 +6300,7 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Steve Baird
-Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2018   7:23 PM
+Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2019   7:23 PM
 
 The attached version #6 of this AI is intended to address issues/questions
 raised since distribution of version #5 on 1/17/19. [This is version /08 of
@@ -6343,5 +6343,58 @@
 4) Remove the Bounded_Big_Integers proposal from this AI so that it
     becomes a separate AI (which, obviously, depends on this AI).
     [This is now AI12-0305-1 - Editor.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Friday, February  2, 2019   7:23 PM
+
+...
+> 1) Fixed a "Numeerics" typo, as well as incorporating Randy's 
+> editorial
+>     fixes that he made when posting version #5 (hopefully I didn't
+>     miss any).
+
+I didn't see any editorial fixes missed. Good job!
+ 
+However, you neither addressed nor dismissed my technical concerns over the
+11.5(23) wording. At a bare minimum, you need to adjust the wording to mention
+instances of these packages and drop the mention of Type_Invariants (since 
+they're treated like Post -- must be True or else). The "Reason"
+talks about the non-existent package "Ada.Big_Numbers".
+
+I had suggested totally replacing the 11.5(23) change with the following:
+
+Numeric_Check
+
+Perform the checks associated with the Pre, Static_Predicate, or 
+Dynamic_Predicate aspects associated with an entity declared in a descendant 
+unit of Numerics or in an instance of a generic unit that is declared in, or
+is, a descendant unit of Numerics.
+
+AARM Reason: One could use the Assertion_Policy to eliminate such checks, 
+but that would require recompiling the Ada.Numerics packages (the assertion
+policy that determines whether the checks are made is that used to compile 
+the unit). In addition, we do not want to specify the behavior of the 
+Ada.Numerics operations if a precondition or predicate fails; that is 
+different than the usual behavior of Assertion_Policy.
+By using Suppress for this purpose, we make it clear that suppressing a 
+check that would have failed results in erroneous execution.
+
+----
+
+But this is way too big a change from me to make without concurrence from 
+others. In particular, I don't know if my "subsystem suppression" plan was
+really adopted by the group or if I just invented it and really only the 
+containers were approved. (BTW, I think it is likely that I will change the
+containers to use wording like the above, if we go forward with this; the 
+containers wording is more targeted to just Pre, as we can't add predicates 
+to existing packages. But I'd rather that each such check was described the
+same.)
+
+Below is the relevant part of my original message on this topic:
+
+[See the last part of Randy's message of January 8, 2019 7:56 PM 
+for this text - Editor.]
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent