CVS difference for ais/ai-00194.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00194.txt

--- ais/ai-00194.txt	1998/09/30 00:17:35	1.1
+++ ais/ai-00194.txt	1998/10/13 17:48:45	1.2
@@ -1,26 +1,38 @@
-!standard A.10.3   (12)                               98-03-27  AI95-00194/00
+!standard A.10.3   (12)                               98-10-13  AI95-00194/01
 !class binding interpretation 97-08-19
 !status received 97-08-19
 !priority Medium
 !difficulty Easy
 !subject Typo in Standard_Error Definition
 
-!summary 97-08-19
+!summary 98-10-13
 
+A.10.3(12) should refer to the standard error file, not to the standard
+output file.
 
-!question 97-08-19
+!question 98-10-13
 
+In the definition of the Text_IO functions Standard_Error, the RM states
+states that the returned access value for the File_Access function designates
+"the standard output file."  This is just a copy-and-forget-to-edit error,
+right? (Yes.)
+
+!recommendation 98-10-13
 
-!recommendation 97-08-19
+(See Summary.)
 
+!wording 98-10-13
 
-!wording 97-08-19
+Replace A.10.3(12) with:
 
+"Returns the standard error file (see A.10), or an access value designating
+the standard error file, respectively."
 
-!discussion 97-08-19
+!discussion 98-10-13
 
+The intent here is obvious; this is just an editing error.
 
-!appendix 98-03-27
+!appendix 98-10-13
 
 !section A.10.3(12)
 !subject Typo in Standard_Error Definition
@@ -85,3 +97,95 @@
 Frank Ecke, franke@minet.uni-jena.de
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: 	Randy Brukardt[SMTP:Randy@RRSOFTWARE.COM]
+Sent: 	Monday, October 12, 1998 5:41 PM
+Subject: 	AI-00194
+
+This AI is indeed a typo in the manual.
+
+However, I object to treating this as a presentation AI rather than a binding
+interpretation.  (I suspect Bob felt that way, too, or he wouldn't have opened
+an AI on it in the first place).
+
+We have decided to leave presentation issues, confirmations, and (most)
+ramifications out of the Corrigendum. This is reasonable for most presentation
+Ais, which deal with missing words or punctuation. This issue, however deals
+with a completely wrong (but plausible) word in the standard. Leaving it out
+of the Conundrum would be bad, as it would implicitly validate the incorrect
+meaning for the routine.
+
+Therefore, I believe this issue should be dealt with a binding interpretation
+AI. Or should we reconsider having presentation issues in the Corrigendum?
+
+                                Randy.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: 	Pascal Leroy[SMTP:phl@Rational.Com]
+Sent: 	Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:08 AM
+Subject: 	Re: AI-00194
+
+> However, I object to treating this as a presentation AI rather than a
+binding
+> interpretation.
+
+Agreed.  It has to be binding.
+
+Pascal
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: 	john barnes[SMTP:jgpb@JBINFO.DEMON.CO.UK]
+Sent: 	Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:35 AM
+Subject: 	Re: AI-00194
+
+In message  <981013120854.ZM7152@rational.com> pleroy@RATIONAL.COM writes:
+> > However, I object to treating this as a presentation AI rather than a
+> binding
+> > interpretation.
+>
+> Agreed.  It has to be binding.
+
+I agree as well.  Presentation issues are usually spelling errors etc. Of
+course, it might be a big spelling error ...
+
+
+--
+John
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: 	Robert Dewar[SMTP:dewar@GNAT.COM]
+Sent: 	Tuesday, October 13, 1998 8:25 AM
+To: 	ARG@ACM.ORG
+Subject: 	Re: AI-00194
+
+better to err on the side of caution here. Note that the ignoramuses who
+use the number of AI's to indict Ada have not in the past been willing to
+look at the niceties of categorization, and are unlikely to do so in
+the future.
+
+Remember that a typo historically means something introduced by the
+typographer rather than the author.
+
+We tend to use it these days to refer to any slip of the author that is
+obviously unintentional, but that is a dangerous extension of the meaning :-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: 	Erhard Ploedereder[SMTP:ploedere@INFORMATIK.UNI-STUTTGART.DE]
+Sent: 	Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:20 AM
+Subject: 	Re: AI-00194
+
+All the presentation issues will be in the Corrigendum, by default. I
+thought we had some in there that were more than typographical, albeit
+very obvious "textual" mistakes.
+
+But o.k., we treated AI-7 (instantiating Enum_IO with Float) as a binding
+interpretation, so this one should be that, too.
+
+Erhard
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent