!standard 6.6 (6)                                 21-11-11  AI22-0005-1/00
!class confirmation 21-11-11
!status received 21-11-11
!priority Low
!difficulty Easy
!qualifier Omission
!subject Editorial comments on AARM 2022

!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,
AI05-0005-1 did for Ada 2012, and AI12-0005-1 did for Ada 2022. 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.

!issue

!response

!appendix

From: John Barnes
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2021 xx:xx PM

... [Placeholder for the moment.]

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

Editor's note (Nov 8, 2021): All of the items above this
marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.

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

From: Niklas Holsti
WG 9 Review issue #167 - May 21, 2021

In this "Ramification" [4.9(13.b) - Editor.], the last case, "when specifying
the value of a discriminant ...", is no longer exactly true, because a
nonstatic value is now allowed if the value has a static subtype that governs
the variant part, RM 4.3.1(17/5).

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

From: Randy Brukardt
WG 9 Review issue #167 - May 25, 2021

You are correct. Moreover, this note reads as if this is a complete list of 
places where static expressions are required. But there has been no
maintenance of this list in Ada 2005, Ada 2012, or Ada 202x, and it is almost
certainly missing some constructs. It would be better to reduce it to a few
interesting cases as examples, because no one is ever going to remember to
maintain a list like this, (Rather, the complete list should be in the index
as "static expression, required", but that's another can of worms at this late
date - trying to find all of the places would be a pain.)

Anyway, I replaced the entire note with:

The language requires a static expression in a number_declaration, a numeric 
type definition, certain representation items, and a number of other places.

If someone would like to develop a complete list of current places, I'd be 
happy to put index entries in for them all. In that case, I'd add to the above
" See 'static expression, required' in the index for a complete list of
places".

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

From: Tucker Taft
WG 9 Review issue #167 - May 27, 2021

I would defer the new index entry to the next revision. I would change
"places" to "contexts" in your new wording.

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

From: Randy Brukardt
WG 9 Review issue #167 - May 27, 2021

I've marked this "deferred" so we remember to add the missing index entries.

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

From: Randy Brukardt
In part from issue #19 - September 2, 2022

The profiles defined all should be indexed like "profiles, Ravenscar"
(similarly to restrictions).

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

From: Steve Baird
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 (privately)

Are we missing something in

    AARM Reason: For a function that has a parameter of T or access T, a blanket
    rule in 13.1.1 requires the function to be a primitive operation of T, the
    wording about the same declaration_list is redundant in that case.

? Perhaps something like

    AARM Reason: For a function that has a parameter of T or access T (so a blanket
    rule in 13.1.1 requires the function to be a primitive operation of T) the
    wording about the same declaration_list is redundant.

would be better.

This wording occurs twice in the AI.

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

From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 (privately)

How about:

   AARM Reason: For a function that has a parameter of T or access T, a blanket
   rule in 13.1.1 requires the function to be a primitive operation of T, so the
   wording about the same declaration_list is redundant in that case.

   [Editor's note: Fix both of the AARM notes in AI22-0002-1 (After
   AARM 4.1.6(3.b/3) and  AARM 5.5.1(8.a/3)).]

I suspect this is what was meant to be written. The point is that the blanket
rule makes the wording redundant in this particular case. We have the case
first, the mention of the blanket rule, and finally the consequence.

One could imagine fully rewriting these notes to reorder the parts, but I haven't
found anything that works better.

Since AI22-0002-1 is WG 9 approved, I'll put this wording fix into AI22-0005-1
(the AARM note AI). No ARG action is needed.

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