CVS difference for ais/ai-00254.txt

Differences between 1.13 and version 1.14
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00254.txt

--- ais/ai-00254.txt	2004/09/14 01:25:56	1.13
+++ ais/ai-00254.txt	2004/09/17 04:44:34	1.14
@@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@
 !reference RM9X-3.10.2(16);4.0
 !reference AARM-12.3(12.p,12.q);4.0
 !reference LSN-1042 on Accessibility Checks in Generics
-!from Bob Duff $Date: 2004/09/14 01:25:56 $ $Revision: 1.13 $
+!from Bob Duff $Date: 2004/09/17 04:44:34 $ $Revision: 1.14 $
 !discussion
 
 Two issues related to access types and the accessibility rules came
@@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@
 !topic LSN on Accessibility Checks in Generics
 !key LSN-1042 on Accessibility Checks in Generics
 !reference MS-12;4.6
-!from Bob Duff $Date: 2004/09/14 01:25:56 $ $Revision: 1.13 $
+!from Bob Duff $Date: 2004/09/17 04:44:34 $ $Revision: 1.14 $
 !discussion
 
 This Language Study Note discusses accessibility checks, and their
@@ -3792,6 +3792,129 @@
 But that's not quite true.  I think the truth is that I used to put dash
 after non most of the time, but during the Ada9X review process,
 somebody told me to quit doing that.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004  10:26 AM
+
+It is with deep regret that I missed all the non-sense discussion. I was on
+vacation.
+
+The Oxford dictionary is very confused. It does not recognize the word non
+on its own although the illiterate English now use it widely. There seems to
+be no rule regarding which words have a hyphen and which are joined up.
+Fowler hints that joining up is more prevalent in the US. The general style
+would be to join up once a word is no longer experimental. I would favour
+joining up when that is not confusing but clearly consistency in the RM is
+important.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Michael Yoder
+Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004  10:54 AM
+
+How about using a hyphen when the word begins with I through N, and not when it
+begins with A-H or O-Z? And the behavior could be changed with "pragma
+Implicit..."
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004  2:13 AM
+
+> "nonformal" seems to be a nonword (pun intended) as well. I hadn't
+> considered inventing new words as an option for the Standard. [Yes,
+> "nonword" isn't a word, either.] And I'm surprised that it would bother
+> someone now when no one complained about it during the editorial review of
+> the AI (I just went back and verified that).
+
+Of course they're words.  Not only that, they even occur in dictionaries. :)
+Both "nonword" and "nonformal" are listed in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
+Dictionary (10th edition and others).  Btw, even nonwords are words.
+
+Sorry, couldn't resist adding one more comment on this trivial issue...
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004  9:13 AM
+
+nonformal is not a Main word in the OED. You find a lot of dubious in MWC, and
+since there is nothing like a formal etymology and full set of sources,
+you really can't judge where they got these junk words from. nonword is
+also not a Main word in the OED.
+
+Remember that if something is not a Main word
+in edition 2 of the OED, it generally
+means that it has either not been used significantly at all in
+published texts, or has only been used very recently, or
+sporadically, which is
+always suspicious. There are exceptions, but I very much doubt
+that either of these cases constitute exceptions.
+
+I would strongly recommend that the LRM take a conservative position
+in making up words, and in particular I would avoid americanisms like
+these where possible.
+
+What should be done is that any time there is a made up word in the
+LRM, there should be a very clear understanding that it is being
+made up, and there must be an index entry pointing to the clear
+definition of the made up word.
+
+By the way, I would recommend that if we follow this further, everyone
+read the twenty-six column entry in OED on non- (probably one of the
+longest entries in the dictionary). I certainly learned quite a bit
+from a cursory reading. Some quotes that are of relevance:
+
+"one of the great formative elements in english"
+
+"In the majority of the compounds of non- the hyphen is usually
+retained, but it is commonly omitted in the case of a few, such as
+nonconformist, nonentity, nonsense, in which the etymology has to
+some extent lost sight of."
+
+"Formations having an independent status or a continuous history during
+any period are entered as Main words; a small proportion of the remainder
+are illustrated in this article, no attempthaving been made to represent
+with any degree of fullness the very extensive development in the use
+of this prefix during the last hundred years."
+
+Note: among these examples (all with quotes of course) non-word does
+not appear, and non-formal does.
+
+I think the right conclusion here is that if the Ada RM takes advantage
+of what is clearly a reasonably general permission to create new words
+using this formation, the hyphenated form should always be used, since
+you always want to stress the etymology, and also the OED is pretty
+clearly saying that the forms without a hyphen have to have a clearly
+established usage, and appear as Main words.
+
+> Sorry, couldn't resist adding one more comment on this trivial issue...
+
+There is never any harm in reaffirming the second law :-) :-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004  12:57 PM
+
+> I would strongly recommend that the LRM take a conservative position
+> in making up words, and in particular I would avoid americanisms like
+> these where possible.
+
+I agree. But in this particular instance, Gary has pointed out that the
+Standard already contains two uses of "nonformal", so consistency in
+spelling is best. (I made the change he requested, ultimately.) I just wish
+he'd have been clearer about that in the first place, so we didn't have to
+have this long-running discussion.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004  6:28 PM
+
+Right, so both these usages are wrong, and should be changed to non-formal.
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent