CVS difference for ais/ai-00114.txt

Differences between 1.13 and version 1.14
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00114.txt

--- ais/ai-00114.txt	2005/06/16 23:47:06	1.13
+++ ais/ai-00114.txt	2005/08/21 06:00:08	1.14
@@ -550,6 +550,13 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Date: Thursday, January 20, 2005  5:56 PM
+
+12.5.1(23.a) needs a comma before which in the last sentence.
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Pascal Leroy
 Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  4:37 AM
 
@@ -598,6 +605,13 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005  8:32 AM
+
+In 12.5(7.c), change "a "interesting"" to "an "interesting"".
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Randy Brukardt
 Date: Monday, March 21, 2005  10:10 PM
 
@@ -667,6 +681,39 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Tullio Vardanega
+Date: Friday, May 6, 2005  8:33 AM
+
+The acronym RTS (though possibly clear to the initiated) is
+used twice in the whole AARM without ever being defined. It first
+appears at 9.8(4.a) and then pops up in C.4(13.b). We should revert to
+the expanded term as used elsewhere.
+
+In C.7.2(28.b), "that have been Reference'd"
+(instead of "for which the function Reference was invoked") reads
+awkwardly.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Date: Friday, May 6, 2005  7:25 PM
+
+Paragraph C.3.1(11.a) reads oddly to me:
+
+  Reason: The intent is that aggregates all of whose scalar subcomponents
+  are static, and all of whose access subcomponents are null, allocators
+  for access-to-constant types, or X'Access, will be supported with no
+  run-time code generated.
+
+I think the comma after "are static" should be deleted.  Also, I would
+change the "or" to "and" ("..., [or] {and} X'Access"), since all of these
+are intended to be supported with no code.
+
+[Editor's note: This note is only about aggregates, so the last part is
+wrong.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Randy Brukardt
 Date: Thursday, May 19, 2005  10:30 PM
 
@@ -683,8 +730,122 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Date: Friday, June 17, 2005  6:35 AM
+
+13.5.1(1.b) says "pragma Bit_Order". But Bit_Order is an attribute, set
+by an attribute_definition_clause.
+
+13.7.2(5.a) should say "aliased" Object (otherwise Unchecked_Access is not
+allowed, so the behavior is random). [Editor's note: 13.3(16) says that
+Address only needs to provide a "useful result" if the prefix is aliased
+or by-reference, so that's what this should say.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Christoph Grein
+Date: Monday, June 20, 2005  2:35 AM
+
+These have escaped your scrutiny (disjunct from Dan Eilers's list):
+
+3.8 (12.e/2) [It] {They} also prevent circularities.
+
+4.3.1(16.b/2) Note that [the] some of the rules
+
+11.5(31.h/2) the new check on allocators (see 4.8{)}.
+
+11.5(13) Shouldn't rem and mod be in bold face?
+----
+I hesitate to mention the follwoing because it's only a problem in the
+coloured version of the AARM:
+
+12.5.1(21/2) The new term progenitor is red in the later senteces of
+this paragraph. It shluld be blue (three times).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Christoph Grein
+Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005  3:03 AM
+
+8.3(23.1/2) {visible (attribute_@!definition_@!clause)
+
+8.3(26.i.3/1) [package A]
+
+8.3(26.i.14/2) The context clause for Bad is illegal as I1 has an
+implicit declaration of I1.G2 based on the generic child G1.G2, as well
+was the mention of the explicit child I1.G2.
+I do not understand the part beginning with "as well was".
+
+8.3.1(8/2) The use of overriding_indicators allow{s} the detection
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Date: Monday, August 8, 2005  11:08 PM
+
+> 8.3(23.1/2) {visible (attribute_@!definition_@!clause)
+
+That's not a typo, its a "feature" of the program -- it outputs the formatting
+codes associated with index entries.
+
+> 8.3(26.i.3/1) [package A]
+
+OK.
+
+> 8.3(26.i.14/2) The context clause for Bad is illegal as I1 has an
+> implicit declaration of I1.G2 based on the generic child G1.G2, as well
+> was the mention of the explicit child I1.G2.
+> I do not understand the part beginning with "as well was".
+
+It should say "as well as". And this is the technical use of "mention". Does it
+make more sense now??
+
+> 8.3.1(8/2) The use of overriding_indicators allow{s} the detection
+
+This seems to be a plural phrase to me, thus "allow". But I'm not certain, and
+Word is no help (it seems to be happy with either form). In any case, I'm not
+going to change it without something more definitive.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005  12:32 AM
+
+The subject is "the use of ...", which is singular, so it should be "allows".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: John Barnes
+Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005  1:38 AM
+
+I've scoured the Oxford dictionary, Fowler's Modern English usage and the
+Latin dictionary for the word usus (4th decl) from which use comes. There is
+no hint anywhere of it not behaving as a normal noun. I suggets therefore
+that it should be treated as singular. It is the same structure as "The
+howling of the cats is awful"
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Jeffery Carter
+Date: Tuesday, August 9, 2005  8:49 PM
+
+In American usage, the subject is "the use", which is singular. I'm not
+so sure about British usage, which allows such things as "The band are
+good tonight," which should be singular in American usage.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Date: Friday, August 12, 2005  4:12 PM
+
+The last sentence of 13.5.1(1.a) doesn't make any logical sense. John
+suggested changing it to "In the interest of uniformity, negative offsets..."
+and I think that would be much better.
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
-Date: May 20, 2005
+Date: August 16, 2005
 
 I've made the corrections needed to implement the presentation issues
 above in the updated AARM (Amendment 1 version), or explained why the suggested

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent