CVS difference for ais/ai-00093.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00093.txt

--- ais/ai-00093.txt	1998/09/30 00:17:15	1.1
+++ ais/ai-00093.txt	1999/07/28 00:08:44	1.2
@@ -1,17 +1,18 @@
-!standard RM-4.1.4 (12)                               95-11-01  AI95-00093/02
+!standard RM-4.1.4 (12)                               99-07-27  AI95-00093/03
 !class binding interpretation 95-09-29
+!status Corrigendum 2000 99-07-27
 !status WG9 approved 95-06-14
 !status ARG approved 10-0-0  95-11-01
 !status received 95-09-29
 !subject Float_Type'Small
 
-!summary 95-09-29
+!summary
 
 An implementation may support an implementation-defined attribute Small
 for floating point types.
 
-!question 95-09-29
- 
+!question
+
 Paragraph 4.1.4(12) says:
 
     An implementation may provide implementation-defined attributes; the
@@ -31,21 +32,39 @@
 May an implementation support the 'Small attribute for floating-point
 types?  (Yes.)
 
-!recommendation 95-09-29
+!recommendation
 
 (See summary.)
 
-!wording 95-09-29
+!wording
 
+(See corrigendum.)
 
-!discussion 95-09-29
+!discussion
 
 The intent is that implementations be allowed to support all Ada 83
 attributes, for upward compatibility.  Thus, it is important that they
 be allowed to support the Small attribute on floating point types.
 Therefore, this AI makes a specific exception to the rule in 4.1.4(12).
+
+!corrigendum 4.01.04(12)
+
+@drepl
+An implementation may provide implementation-defined attributes; the
+identifier for an implementation-defined attribute shall differ from those of
+the language-defined attributes.
+@dby
+An implementation may provide implementation-defined attributes; the
+identifier for an implementation-defined attribute shall differ from
+those of the language-defined attributes unless supplied for
+compatibility with the previous version of this standard.
+
+!ACATS test
+
+This ruling give a permission. Since there is no requirement to use this
+permission, nor guidance on what the permission means, this cannot be tested.
 
-!appendix 95-09-29
+!appendix
 
 !section RM-4.1.4(12)
 !subject Float_Type'Small
@@ -54,7 +73,7 @@
 !from Keith Thompson 95-09-11
 !reference as: 95-5283.a Keith Thompson 95-9-11>>
 !discussion
- 
+
 Paragraph 4.1.4(12) says
     An implementation may provide implementation-defined attributes; the
     identifier for an implementation-defined attribute shall differ from
@@ -72,5 +91,52 @@
 
 May an implementation support the 'Small attribute for floating-point
 types?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Eachus  99-28-06
+
+>AI-93:  Float_Type'Small
+
+>An implementation may provide implementation-defined attributes; the
+>identifier for an implementation-defined attribute shall differ from
+>those of the language-defined attributes or be Small and applicable
+>to floating-point types.
+>
+><<Note.  I find this hard to write neatly. Clearly the spirit is
+>that it should be exactly the same as the Ada 83 attribute but I
+>can't refer to Ada 83 in normative bits.>>
+
+   You don't have to refer to the previous standard by name:
+
+   ...shall differ from those of the language-defined attributes unless
+supplied for compatibility with an earlier version of the standard.
+
+   But better would be to put Float_Type'Small in Annex J.  There is
+already one attribute there (T'Storage_Size) so it wouldn't be breaking new
+ground.  (And since I raised the subject, I see no reason to remove Annex J
+in 2000.  Leave it for the next major revision of the language.)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar   99-28-06
+
+Bad idea to put Float_Type'Small into Annex J, we do not want to contaminate
+the Ada 95 RM with the Ad 83 fpt model.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+from John Barnes 99-06-30
+
+Here is my revised homework for AI 93, further to comments from
+Robert Eachus and Robert Dewar.
+
+I quite liked Robert E's basic suggestion for overcoming direct
+reference to Small but I agree with Robert D that any other messing
+about with annex J would be inappropriate. In any case, if we had
+wanted to do that then the AI would be different. I am only
+empowered to do wording and not revisit the intent of the AI.
+
+John
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent