CVS difference for ais/ai-00224.txt

--- ais/ai-00224.txt	2000/04/14 01:45:08	1.19
+++ ais/ai-00224.txt	2000/06/20 04:22:44	1.20
@@ -240,10 +240,10 @@
 If a non-specific Unsuppress revokes a check on a specific entity, there is
 no gray area as to whether the check is performed or not. For example, in
         pragma Suppress (Access_Check, On => Some_Subtype);
-	...
-	Obj : Some_Subtype;
+        ...
+        Obj : Some_Subtype;
         pragma Unsuppress (Access_Check);
-	...Obj.all...
+        ...Obj.all...
 it does not matter if the check is made on Obj or on Some_Subtype, because
 we know the check will be performed.
 
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@
     pragma Suppress (Access_Check);
     package body My_Pack is
         -- pragma Unsuppress (Access_Check) inherited here.
-	-- Access_Checks are not suppressed in this body.
+        -- Access_Checks are not suppressed in this body.
     end My_Pack;
 
 Since the configuration pragma is outside of the package body, it is revoked
@@ -332,7 +332,7 @@
 
 For instance:
 
-	pragma Suppress (Access_Check);
+        pragma Suppress (Access_Check);
         pragma Suppress (Index_Check);
         ....
         pragma Unsuppress (All_Checks);
@@ -364,7 +364,7 @@
 Consider:
 
     package Something is
-	...
+        ...
         pragma Suppress (Access_Check, On => Some_Subtype);
     end Something;
 
@@ -505,7 +505,7 @@
 as possible to all users of Ada, not just to the customers of one particular
 compiler.
 
-			Randy.
+                        Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -550,7 +550,7 @@
 AI and start over (the wording and discussion would have to be totally rewritten
 to use a stacking semantics).
 
-				Randy.
+                                Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -715,7 +715,7 @@
 
 I'll rewrite the AI and repost it sometime after Thanksgiving.
 
-				Randy.
+                                Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -761,7 +761,7 @@
 seen in, then using both Suppress and Unsuppress as configuration pragmas is
 implementation-dependent. Ugh.
 
-			Randy.
+                        Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -880,7 +880,7 @@
 This appears to be a case of "we know what we want, but we don't know how to
 describe it".
 
-			Randy.
+                        Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -950,7 +950,7 @@
 would prevent the problem from occurring. None of these look like particularly
 good choices.
 
-			Randy.
+                        Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@
 possibility (unless all of the vendors support it in the same way, which is very
 unlikely).
 
-			Randy.
+                	Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
 
@@ -1384,12 +1384,12 @@
 related entity?  (It is clear that the names given in the On=> may relate to
 different aspects of the same entity.)  Consider:
 
-	type Some_Type is access ....
-	subtype Sub_Type is Some_Type <some constraint>;
+        type Some_Type is access ....
+        subtype Sub_Type is Some_Type <some constraint>;
 
-	pragma Suppress (Access_Check, On => Sub_Type);
-	pragma Unsuppress (Access_Check, On => Some_Type);
-	-- Is the check on Sub_Type suppressed here?
+        pragma Suppress (Access_Check, On => Sub_Type);
+        pragma Unsuppress (Access_Check, On => Some_Type);
+        -- Is the check on Sub_Type suppressed here?
 
 I also wonder if this is a good idea. I don't think we really care what happens
 with same-scope Suppress/Unsuppress as long as we can define it; what is
@@ -2462,7 +2462,7 @@
 
 So I await any technical or implementation arguments against this.
 
-			Randy.
+                        Randy.
 
 *************************************************************