CVS difference for ais/ai-presentation.txt

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

--- ais/ai-presentation.txt	2000/03/14 00:05:55	1.4
+++ ais/ai-presentation.txt	2000/10/05 02:47:31	1.5
@@ -8,15 +8,15 @@
 
 The index entry for "unspecified" should not point to A.15(20).
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section A.15(20)
 !subject Incorrect reference in AARM
@@ -41,21 +41,21 @@
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject The implicit range shown in the example is incorrect.
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 In the example where delta is 0.01, the implicit range defined by the digits
 contraint "digits 6" is -9999.99 .. 9999.99 (according to RM95-3.5.9(18)),
 not -99.9999 .. 99.9999 as stated in paragraph RM95-3.5.9(18d).
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 3.5.9(18)
 !subject The implicit range shown in the example is incorrect.
@@ -68,31 +68,27 @@
 contraints "digits 6" is -9999.99 .. 9999.99 (according to RM95-3.5.9(18)),
 not -99.9999 .. 99.9999 as stated in paragraph RM95-3.5.9(18d).
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 03.09.02 (20)                               95-06-25  AI95-00009/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Clarify example 3.9.2(20.e).
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 Two comments in 3.9.2(20.e) say "Nondispatching call."
 This is correct, but could be clarified by saying
 "Nondispatching call to a dispatching operation."
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 3.9.2(20)
 !subject All calls in the example are dispatching, but their tag may or may not
@@ -110,27 +106,23 @@
 determined.  The comments should be changed to talk of "(non) statically
 determined tags".
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 03.09.03 (03)                               95-06-25  AI95-00010/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Reserved word "abstract" should be in bold.
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 3.9.3(3)
 !subject Reserved word "abstract" should be in bold.
@@ -142,27 +134,23 @@
 In the declaration of procedure Print, the reserved word "abstract" should
 appear in bold.
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 03.09.03 (06)                               95-06-25  AI95-00011/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject T2 inherits an abtract Do_Something, but T{2} is not abtract
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 3.9.3(6)
 !subject T2 inherits an abtract Do_Something, but T{2} is not abtract
@@ -171,27 +159,23 @@
 !reference as: 95-5071.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 03.10.01 (23)                               95-06-25  AI95-00013/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject even if [it] its completion is deferred
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 3.10.1(23)
 !subject even if [it] its completion is deferred
@@ -200,27 +184,23 @@
 !reference as: 95-5073.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 04.01.03 (07)                               95-06-25  AI95-00015/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject The protected body may not reference [the] the private components...
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 4.1.3(7)
 !subject The protected body may not reference [the] the private components...
@@ -229,23 +209,19 @@
 !reference as: 95-5075.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 04.03.03 (16)                               95-06-25  AI95-00016/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Incompatibility with Ada 83 on applicable index constraints
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 No applicable index constraint is defined for a parameter in a call to a
 generic formal subprogram; hence, passing an aggregate with an 'others'
 is illegal in that case.  This is an upward incompatibility.
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
 The following text was legal Ada 83, but is not legal Ada 95:
 
@@ -264,18 +240,18 @@
 
 Is this incompatibility intended?  (Yes.)
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
 The incompatibility should be documented in the AARM.
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
 The incompatibility is necessary to avoid generic contract model
 problems.
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 4.3.3(16)
 !subject Incompatibility with Ada'83 on applicable index constraints
@@ -306,29 +282,25 @@
 
     package Ip is new Gp (G);
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 04.04    (15)                               95-06-25  AI95-00017/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Case of string literal in example
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 Change "Bwv" to "BWV".
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 4.4(15)
 !subject Case of string literal in example
@@ -340,28 +312,38 @@
 In the exmaples of expressions, the string literal "Bwv" would be better
 written "BWV": this is after all an acronym, and the new rule about case of
 identifiers should not extend to string literals...
+
+****************************************************************
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
+From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
+Date: August 30, 2000
 
+There seems to be no point to the above suggestion. The full example is
+   Password(1..3) = "Bwv"
+
+I don't see why a password can't be case sensitive (although I hate systems
+like that!), nor why it would have to be meaningful in any way. The
+suggestion that this is an acronym makes no sense to me; it doesn't seem to
+be any of the common acronyms with which I am familar. So I have made no change
+here.
+
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 04.08    (20)                               95-06-25  AI95-00019/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject ...even though the constraint had no [a]{e}ffect...
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 4.8(20)
 !subject ...even though the constraint had no [a]{e}ffect...
@@ -370,24 +352,20 @@
 !reference as: 95-5079.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 05.04    (07)                               95-06-25  AI95-00020/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Incompability with Ada 83 in legal choices of case statements
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 A function_call is a name.  Therefore, if the expression of a
 case_statement is a function_call, and the result subtype is static, it
 is illegal to specify a choice outside the bounds of the subtype.  This
 is an upward incompatibility.
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
 Function calls were not names in Ada 83, but they are names in Ada 95.
 This means that existing case statements may become illegal since they
@@ -411,17 +389,17 @@
 
 Is this incompatibility intended?  (Yes.)
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
 The incompatibility should be documented in the AARM.
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
 ???
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 5.4(7)
 !subject Incompability with Ada'83 in legal choices of case statements
@@ -450,9 +428,21 @@
 	    ...
     end case;
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
+****************************************************************
+!topic      Change from Ada 83 omitted
+!reference  AARM 5.4(18-18.h)
+!from       Wes Groleau  98 Oct 06
+!keywords   base type  others  case
+<<reference as: 1998-15927.b W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1998-10-6>>
+!discussion In Ada '83, a case statement controlled by a function call in
+	    some cases required either an "others" choice or an explicit
+	    choice for a value that could never occur.  The latter
+	    workaround in Ada 83 made for ugly code, but many shops felt
+	    it was better than the maintenance risks of "others." Ada 95
+	    improved this situation.  The improvement made the workaround
+	    illegal.  I approve of the change, but would like to point out
+	    that it would be more accurate to mention it as an
+	    "incompatibility" instead of merely as an "extension."
 
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 08.06    (21)                               95-06-25  AI95-00021/00
@@ -460,17 +450,17 @@
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject ...a universal type that {covers}[includes] the class
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 8.6(21)
 !subject ...a universal type that {covers}[includes] the class
@@ -479,25 +469,21 @@
 !reference as: 95-5081.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 08.06    (29)                               95-06-25  AI95-00022/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Preference for root_integer "[<]{>}" operator
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
 !appendix 95-06-25
 
@@ -508,31 +494,27 @@
 !reference as: 95-5082.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 11.04    (01)                               95-06-25  AI95-00023/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject Bad reference to an implementation permission
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 Remove "(assuming the implementation has not taken advantage of the
 Implementation Permission of 11.3)" from 11.4(1.b).  There was such a
 permission in an earlier version, but it is not in the final Standard.
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 11.4(1)
 !subject Bad reference to an implementation permission
@@ -545,27 +527,23 @@
 but I cannot find an implementation permission in 11.3.  What is the intent of
 this sentence?
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard 12       (01)                               95-06-25  AI95-00024/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject ...the role that macros somtime[d]{s} play in other languages.
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section 12(1)
 !subject ...the role that macros somtime[d]{s} play in other languages.
@@ -574,10 +552,6 @@
 !reference as: 95-5084.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>>
 !discussion
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
-
 ****************************************************************
 !standard B.1      (39)                               95-06-25  AI95-00052/00
 !class presentation 95-06-25
@@ -585,17 +559,17 @@
 !status received 95-06-25
 !subject adainit, adafinal should appear in the index
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-06-25
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-06-25
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-06-25
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-06-25
+!appendix
 
 !section B.1(39)
 !subject adainit, adafinal not indexed
@@ -619,19 +593,19 @@
 !status received 95-07-27
 !subject ... will typically [by]{be} illegal ...
 
-!summary 95-07-27
+!summary
 
 Typo: "by" should be "be".
 
-!question 95-07-27
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-07-27
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-07-27
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-07-27
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-07-27
+!appendix
 
 !section 13.1(24)
 !subject ... will typically [by]{be} illegal ...
@@ -645,19 +619,19 @@
 !status received 95-07-27
 !subject ... we just want to make sure it{'}s feasible.
 
-!summary 95-07-27
+!summary
 
 Typo: "its" should be "it's".
 
-!question 95-07-27
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-07-27
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-07-27
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-07-27
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-07-27
+!appendix
 
 !section 13.1(24)
 !subject ... we just want to make sure it{'}s feasible.
@@ -671,19 +645,19 @@
 !status received 95-07-27
 !subject Illegal syntax in AARM example
 
-!summary 95-07-27
+!summary
 
 The AARM example is syntactically illegal.
 
-!question 95-07-27
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-07-27
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-07-27
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-07-27
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-07-27
+!appendix
 
 !section 8.2(3)
 !subject Add:{begin}
@@ -702,10 +676,6 @@
     X.Q.I := 17; -- Illegal!
 end R;
 
--- eith Shillington (619) 944-1984V -7089fax
--- r recycled.  Reduce & Reuse.  Environmental
--- tware.  Think deep and act quickly.
-
 ****************************************************************
 
 !section 08.02(03)
@@ -743,19 +713,19 @@
 !status received 95-09-29
 !subject Index bug: main subprogram
 
-!summary 95-09-29
+!summary
 
 10.2(29) should be added to the index entry for "main subprogram".
 
-!question 95-09-29
+!question
 
-!recommendation 95-09-29
+!recommendation
 
-!wording 95-09-29
+!wording
 
-!discussion 95-09-29
+!discussion
 
-!appendix 95-09-29
+!appendix
 
 !section RM-00.00(00)
 !subject Index bug: main subprogram
@@ -774,46 +744,50 @@
 Suggestion: add 10.2(29) to the index entry for "main subprogram".
 
 ****************************************************************
-!standard 04.05.02 (37)                               97-08-19  AI95-00154/01
-!class presentation 96-09-04
-!status received 96-09-04
-!subject Miscellaneous Presentation Issues
 
-!summary 96-09-04
+From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
+Date: August 30, 2000
 
+The above suggestion is wrong. 10.2(29) does not define "main subprogram",
+it just uses it. Moreover, there are quite a few other paragraphs in 10.2
+that use "main subprogram" similarly. Should they all be indexed? Finally,
+the index entry *does* point at the right subclause. Generally, uses of
+terms are indexed only when very important; index entries primarily serve
+to point out definitions of terms.
 
-!question 96-09-04
+****************************************************************
 
+From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
+Date: August 30, 2000
 
-!recommendation 96-09-04
+I've made the corrections needed to implement all of the numbered presentation
+issues above in the updated AARM (including the Corrigendum changes).
+In a few cases, no corrections were done or are anticipated. (These are
+described in the AI annex.
 
+****************************************************************
 
-!wording 96-09-04
+!standard 04.05.02 (37)                               97-08-19  AI95-00154/01
+!class presentation 96-09-04
+!status received 96-09-04
+!subject Miscellaneous Presentation Issues
 
+!summary
 
-!discussion 96-09-04
 
+!question
 
-!appendix 96-09-04
 
-!section 4.5.2(37)
-!subject Illegal string comparison in RM95-4.5.2 example
-!reference RM95-4.5.2(37)
-!from Laurent Guerby 96-06-30
-!keywords example
-!reference 96-5620.a Laurent Guerby  96-6-30>>
-!discussion
+!recommendation
 
-   "" < "A" and "A" < "Aa"    -- True
-   "Aa" < "B" and "A" < "A  " -- True
 
-   are both illegal (ambiguous between Wide_String and String).
+!wording
 
---
-Laurent Guerby <guerby@gnat.com>, Team Ada.
-   "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."
 
-****************************************************************
+!discussion
+
+
+!appendix
 
 !section 3.8.1(2)
 !subject The syntax rules of variant_part should be revised
@@ -1299,9 +1273,43 @@
 
 Pascal
 
-_____________________________________________________________________
-Pascal Leroy                                    +33.1.30.12.09.68
-pleroy@rational.com                             +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
+Date: August 30, 2000
+
+The syntax changes proposed by Prof. Baowen Xu are clearly out-of-scope
+and (for the reason mentioned by Pascal) counter-productive. They will be
+ignored. His other comments are also incorrect (the "others" requirement for
+an array aggregate is actually found in 3.8.1). So these comments will be
+ignored.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt (Editor)
+Date: August 30, 2000
+
+Items below this item have *not* been handled in the updated AARM. That can
+be accomplished at a future time.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+!section 4.5.2(37)
+!subject Illegal string comparison in RM95-4.5.2 example
+!reference RM95-4.5.2(37)
+!from Laurent Guerby 96-06-30
+!keywords example
+!reference 96-5620.a Laurent Guerby  96-6-30>>
+!discussion
+
+   "" < "A" and "A" < "Aa"    -- True
+   "Aa" < "B" and "A" < "A  " -- True
+
+   are both illegal (ambiguous between Wide_String and String).
+
+--
+Laurent Guerby <guerby@gnat.com>, Team Ada.
+   "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent