CVS difference for ais/ai-10284.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-10284.txt

--- ais/ai-10284.txt	2004/11/02 01:50:31	1.4
+++ ais/ai-10284.txt	2004/11/14 06:37:23	1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 2.09    (02)                              04-09-22  AI95-00284-02/02
+!standard 2.09    (02)                              04-11-09  AI95-00284-02/03
 !standard J.12    (01)
 !class amendment 04-07-19
 !status Amendment 200Y 04-09-22
@@ -11,12 +11,12 @@
 
 !summary
 
-"interface", "overriding" and "synchronized" are reserved words.
+"interface", "overriding", and "synchronized" are reserved words.
 
 !problem
 
-Three new keywords need be added to support the new features of the
-amendment. AI95-00284-01 proposes the introduction of non-reserved keywords
+Three new keywords need to be added to support the new features of the
+Amendment. AI95-00284-01 proposes the introduction of non-reserved keywords
 in the language to maintain compatibility with existing programs
 despite the introduction of the new keywords. This alternative proposes
 that they be reserved words.
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 
 !wording
 
-Add "interface", "overriding" and "synchronized" to the list of
+Add "interface", "overriding", and "synchronized" to the list of
 reserved words in 2.9(2).
 
 Add a new clause to Annex J:
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
 different option.
 
 It is however important to assess the impact of the introduction of
-new reserved words for programs that currently uses them as
+new reserved words for programs that currently use them as
 identifiers. There is of course no impact for programs that do not use
 them, we will therefore assess how likely it is that the proposed new
 keywords be actually used, and in which contexts.
@@ -113,8 +113,8 @@
 
 - As a package identifier
 It seems highly unlikely that an application uses "Interface" for the
-name of root package, because of the possible confusion with the
-package Interfaces. It is possible that the name be used for a child
+name of a root package, because of the possible confusion with the
+package Interfaces. It is possible that the name might be used for a child
 package, like Some_Hardware.Interface. However, such usage is likely
 to be of limited scope, therefore the extent of a modification should
 be limited.
@@ -141,12 +141,6 @@
 "Is_Synchronized" (like "Is_Protected" for Ada 95) was deemed
 acceptable by the community.
 
-Moreover, this keyword has been introduced recently, and is used only
-for synchronized interfaces. An alternate syntax could be found that
-does not require a new keyword, like:
-
-   type T is task or protected interface;
-
 -----
 
 The AFNOR committee includes a representative of a big french company
@@ -155,8 +149,8 @@
 was well acceptable, and that he would support this position.
 
 It is also important to note that making the keywords reserved will
-imply an one-shot modification to existing programs, while having them
-unreserved may cause permanent problems over the whole lifecycle.
+imply a one-shot modification to existing programs, while having them
+nonreserved may cause permanent problems over the whole lifecycle.
 
 In conclusion, it is highly likely that every reasonable coding
 standard will forbid the use of unreserved keywords in new programs,
@@ -181,7 +175,7 @@
 !corrigendum 02.09(2)
 
 @dinsl
-@B<interface>@hr
+@b<interface>@hr
 @b<overriding>@hr
 @b<synchronized>
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent