CVS difference for ais/ai-00114.txt

Differences between 1.9 and version 1.10
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00114.txt

--- ais/ai-00114.txt	2005/01/07 03:07:23	1.9
+++ ais/ai-00114.txt	2005/02/08 07:12:18	1.10
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
 annotations.  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.
+
 !question
 
 !response
@@ -390,6 +392,44 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004  11:02 AM
+
+In C.7.1 we say Task_ID rather than Task_Id.
+
+It seems to me to be better to use ID and to break the rule that only the
+first letter is in caps. We do it consistently with IO.
+
+However, I just noticed that AI-266 and maybe others use Task_Id.
+
+And in 11.4.1 we have Exception_Id and Null_Id.
+
+Would someone like to make a ruling on this? I assume that we could do a
+global edit on the whole RM. Hmmm.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004  5:34 PM
+
+My personal opinion is that Task_ID is wrong. "Id" is an abbreviation for
+"Identifier", not an acronym of some sort. "IO" is an acronym for Input-Output.
+
+However, the Standard is consistent in using Task_ID; only the defect reports
+use Task_Id. It would be easiest to be consistent with that. OTOH, it occurs
+only in 4 existing clauses (C.7.1, C.7.2, D.5, and D.11), so changing it
+wouldn't be impossible.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004  9:34 AM
+
+I agree with this. Only acronyms should be all caps.
+We should be using Task_Id everywhere.
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Robert I. Eachus
 Sent: Wednesday, December  3, 2003  7:53 AM
 
@@ -431,6 +471,121 @@
 The AARM note 3.3(22.a) is completely wrong; there is a legality rule that
 all untagged view conversions are reversible. This presumably was leftover
 from an early version of Ada 9x. Delete this rule.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Dan Eilers
+Sent: Monday, December 17, 2004  8:05 PM
+
+Running spell check finds: (On the December 2004 draft AARM)
+
+and and                 AA-3-10.html   [3.10(9.l) - ED]
+as as                   RM-3-9-3.html  [3.9.3(1/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+architechture           AA-13-13-1.html [13.13.1(9.a.1/1) - ED]
+behaviour               Defect1.html
+convinient              AA-11-3.html   [11.3(7.b/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+declared declared       AA-3-9-3.html  [3.9.3(3/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+Identificiation         Defect1.html
+Internation             AA-0-1.html, RM-0-1.html [Intro(0.3) - Error in draft - ED]
+interprestation         AA-11-5.html   [11.5(31.j/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+is is                   AA-13-5-2.html, RM-8-5-1.html
+				[8.5.1(5/2) - Error in draft; 13.5.2(4.a) - ED]
+langauge                AA-D-14.html, AA-D-15.html, RM-D-14.html, RM-D-15.html
+				[D.14(2/2), D.15(2/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+mechansisms             AA-10-1-4.html  [10.1.4(7.d.1/1) - ED]
+of of                   RM-10-1-1.html  [10.1.1(19/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+overridding             AA-10-2-1.html, AA-8-5-4.html, RM-10-2-1.html
+				[10.2.1(11.4/2) - Error in draft; 8.5.4(7.b.1/2) - ED]
+preelaboratable         AA-0-29.html, AA-10-2-1.html, AA-11-4-1.html,
+                        RM-0-29.html, RM-11-4-1.html
+				[10.2.1(11.1/2) [index]; 11.4.1(2/2);
+				 11.4.1(3/2); 11.4.1(19.aa/2) - Errors in draft - ED]
+rules rules             AA-3-9-4.html   [3.9.4(12/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+specifable              AA-13-1.html    [13.1(24.4/1) - ED]
+that that               AA-3-9.html     [3.9(4.b/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+the the                 AA-M.html, RM-M.html [3.5(37.a/2) - Error in draft - ED]
+visiblity               AA-10-1-3.html  [10.1.3(18.b) - ED]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Erhard Ploedereder
+Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:37 PM
+
+on the occassion of the pleasure of reviewing Chap 11, I traced consistency
+of "True" vs "true", "False" vs. "false" for all references to the boolean
+value in the RM. Amazingly consistent in favor of the upper-case, with a few
+deviations that should be fixed:
+
+"false" -> "False"
+in
+3.5.6(7)
+D.10 (6,7,9)
+
+
+"true" -> "True"
+in
+Language summary (28)
+9.6.1 (72/2, 74/2)
+D.6 (7)
+D.10 (6,7,9)
+
+Notes: The AARM always uses lower-case. I did not bother to keep
+track. Occasionally, as in "the condition is true" in the RM, I let that
+stand as a semantic statement rather than a reference to the literal
+value (compared to "the condition evaluates to True")
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  4:37 AM
+
+3.5.9(18.e) uses "affect" rather than "effect".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  4:40 AM
+
+3.7(1.b) says a type and all of its subtypes have unknown discriminants if
+it is declared that way. But that isn't true even in Ada 95; a partial view
+may have unknown discriminants while the full view does not. Rephrase this
+in terms of views.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  4:43 AM
+
+3.7(26.a) and 3.7(30.a) give a list of places where unknown discriminants are
+allowed; in both places incomplete types are missing.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  4:46 AM
+
+3.8(11.a) says "specifiable". it should be "specified".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005  5:10 AM
+
+In 4.1(17.c), change "...the name denotes [the] {a} value rather than..."
+for consistency with the first part of the sentence.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
+Date: January 28, 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
+correction was not (and will not) be made. Such changes are marked with
+a cross-reference to this AI.
+
+Newer items below this item (if any) have *not* been handled. (They should be
+on the updated AARM).
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent