CVS difference for arm/source/11.mss

Differences between 1.15 and version 1.16
Log of other versions for file arm/source/11.mss

--- arm/source/11.mss	2000/06/03 02:02:34	1.15
+++ arm/source/11.mss	2000/08/03 05:37:40	1.16
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 @Part(11, Root="ada.mss")
 
-@Comment{$Date: 2000/06/03 02:02:34 $}
+@Comment{$Date: 2000/08/03 05:37:40 $}
 @LabeledSection{Exceptions}
 
 @Comment{$Source: e:\\cvsroot/ARM/Source/11.mss,v $}
-@Comment{$Revision: 1.15 $}
+@Comment{$Revision: 1.16 $}
 
 @begin{Intro}
 @redundant[This section defines the facilities for dealing with errors or other
@@ -39,8 +39,8 @@
 @begin{Honest}
 @Defn{occurrence (of an exception)}
 When the meaning is clear from the context,
-we sometimes use ``@i{occurrence}'' as a
-short-hand for ``exception occurrence.''
+we sometimes use @lquotes@;@i{occurrence}@rquotes@; as a
+short-hand for @lquotes@;exception occurrence.@rquotes@;
 @end{Honest}
 
 @redundant[An @nt{exception_declaration} declares a name for an exception.
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@
 we also changed the rules to allow the same exception to be named
 more than once by a given handler.
 Thus,
-``@key[when] Constraint_Error | Numeric_Error =>'' will remain
+@lquotes@;@key[when] Constraint_Error | Numeric_Error =>@rquotes@; will remain
 legal in Ada 9X,
 even though Constraint_Error and Numeric_Error now denote the same
 exception.  However, it will not be legal to have
@@ -203,11 +203,11 @@
 @Syn{lhs=<exception_choice>,rhs="@SynI{exception_}@Syn2{name} | @key{others}"}
 @begin{Honest}
 @Defn{handler}
-``@i{Handler}'' is an abbreviation for ``@nt{exception_handler}.''
+@lquotes@;@i{Handler}@rquotes@; is an abbreviation for @lquotes@;@nt{exception_handler}.@rquotes@;
 
 @Defn2{term=<choice>, Sec=<of an @nt{exception_handler}>}
 Within this section, we sometimes abbreviate
-``@nt{exception_choice}'' to ``@i{choice}.''
+@lquotes@;@nt{exception_choice}@rquotes@; to @lquotes@;@i{choice}.@rquotes@;
 @end{Honest}
 @end{Syntax}
 
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@
   the same exception.  For example, given two renaming declarations in
   separate packages for the same exception, one may nevertheless
   write, for example,
-  ``@key[when] Ada.Text_IO.Data_Error | My_Seq_IO.Data_Error =>''.
+  @lquotes@;@key[when] Ada.Text_IO.Data_Error | My_Seq_IO.Data_Error =>@rquotes@;.
 
   An @key{others} choice even covers exceptions that are not
   visible at the place of the handler.
@@ -286,11 +286,11 @@
 
 Different @nt<choice>s of the same @nt<exception_handler> may
 cover the same exception.  This allows for
-``when Numeric_Error | Constraint_Error =>'' even though
+@lquotes@;when Numeric_Error | Constraint_Error =>@rquotes@; even though
 Numeric_Error is a rename of Constraint_Error.
-This also allows one to ``with'' two different I/O packages,
+This also allows one to @lquotes@;with@rquotes@; two different I/O packages,
 and then write, for example,
-``when Ada.Text_IO.Data_Error | My_Seq_IO.Data_Error =>''
+@lquotes@;when Ada.Text_IO.Data_Error | My_Seq_IO.Data_Error =>@rquotes@;
 even though these might both be renames of the same exception.
 @end{Extend83}
 
@@ -417,8 +417,8 @@
 Examples: The execution of an @nt{if_statement}
 dynamically encloses the evaluation of the @nt{condition} after the
 @key{if} (during that evaluation).
-(Recall that ``execution'' includes both ``elaboration'' and
-``evaluation'', as well as other executions.)
+(Recall that @lquotes@;execution@rquotes@; includes both @lquotes@;elaboration@rquotes@; and
+@lquotes@;evaluation@rquotes@;, as well as other executions.)
 The evaluation of a function call dynamically encloses the execution
 of the @nt{sequence_of_statement}s of the @nt{function_body}
 (during that execution).  Note that, due to recursion, several
@@ -492,7 +492,7 @@
 this execution replaces the abandoned portion of the execution of
 the @nt{sequence_of_statements}.
 @begin{Ramification}
-  This ``replacement'' semantics implies that the handler can do
+  This @lquotes@;replacement@rquotes@; semantics implies that the handler can do
   pretty much anything the abandoned sequence could do; for example, in a
   function, the handler can execute a @nt{return_statement} that
   applies to the function.
@@ -712,7 +712,7 @@
 The reason for choosing the number 200 is that this is the minimum
 source line length that implementations have to support,
 and this feature seems vaguely related since it's usually a
-``one-liner''.
+@lquotes@;one-liner@rquotes@;.
 Note that an implementation is allowed to do this truncation even if it
 supports arbitrarily long lines.
 @end{Reason}
@@ -757,7 +757,7 @@
 Ada.Exceptions.
 
 Note that exceptions behave as if declared at library level;
-there is no ``natural scope'' for an exception; an exception always
+there is no @lquotes@;natural scope@rquotes@; for an exception; an exception always
 exists.  Hence, there is no harm in saving an exception occurrence in
 a data structure, and reraising it later.  The reraise has to occur
 as part of the same program execution, so saving an exception
@@ -966,7 +966,7 @@
 @end{Examples}
 
 @begin{DiffWord83}
-The sections labeled ``Exceptions Raised During ...''
+The sections labeled @lquotes@;Exceptions Raised During ...@rquotes@;
 are subsumed by this clause,
 and by parts of Section 9.
 @end{DiffWord83}
@@ -982,7 +982,7 @@
 @IndexSee{Term=[run-time check],See=(language-defined check)}
 @Defn{run-time error}
 @Defn2{Term=[error], Sec=(run-time)}
-A @i{language-defined check} (or simply, a ``check'') is
+A @i{language-defined check} (or simply, a @lquotes@;check@rquotes@;) is
 one of the situations defined by this International Standard that requires a check to
 be made at run time to determine whether some
 condition is true.
@@ -990,7 +990,7 @@
 A check @i{fails} when the condition being checked is false,
 causing an exception to be raised.
 @begin{Discussion}
-All such checks are defined under ``@RunTimeTitle''
+All such checks are defined under @lquotes@;@RunTimeTitle@rquotes@;
 in clauses and subclauses throughout the standard.
 @end{Discussion}
 @end{Intro}
@@ -1285,7 +1285,7 @@
 @Defn{optimization}
 @Defn{efficiency}
 This clause gives permission to the implementation to perform
-certain ``optimizations'' that do not necessarily preserve the canonical
+certain @lquotes@;optimizations@rquotes@; that do not necessarily preserve the canonical
 semantics.]
 @end{Intro}
 
@@ -1446,7 +1446,7 @@
 @begin{Reason}
   We allow such variables to become abnormal so that
   assignments (other than to atomic variables) can be disrupted
-  due to ``imprecise'' exceptions or instruction scheduling,
+  due to @lquotes@;imprecise@rquotes@; exceptions or instruction scheduling,
   and so that assignments can be reordered
   so long as the correct results are produced in the end if
   no language-defined checks fail.
@@ -1486,9 +1486,9 @@
 customer's needs.
 Therefore, we view this as one viable alternative.
 
-The extreme liberal rule would be ``the language does not specify the
+The extreme liberal rule would be @lquotes@;the language does not specify the
 execution of a program once a language-defined check has failed;
-such execution can be unpredictable.''
+such execution can be unpredictable.@rquotes@;
 This achieves the best efficiency.
 It sounds like a disaster from the predictability point of view,
 but in practice it might not be so bad.
@@ -1533,17 +1533,17 @@
 they are merely pointing out that anything goes if the canonical
 semantics is preserved.
 We have similar introductory paragraphs,
-but we have tried to clarify that these are not granting any ``extra''
+but we have tried to clarify that these are not granting any @lquotes@;extra@rquotes@;
 permission beyond what the rest of the document allows.
 
 Paragraphs 3 and 4 are reflected in the
-``extra permission to reorder actions''.
+@lquotes@;extra permission to reorder actions@rquotes@;.
 Note that this permission now allows the reordering of assignments in
 many cases.
 
 Paragraph 5 is moved to @RefSec{Operators and Expression Evaluation},
 where operator association is discussed.
-Hence, this is no longer an ``extra permission''
+Hence, this is no longer an @lquotes@;extra permission@rquotes@;
 but is part of the canonical semantics.
 
 Paragraph 6 now follows from the general permission to store
@@ -1552,10 +1552,10 @@
 of a type are of the unconstrained subtype of the type.
 
 Paragraph 7 is reflected in the
-``extra permission to avoid raising exceptions''.
+@lquotes@;extra permission to avoid raising exceptions@rquotes@;.
 @end{Itemize}
 
 We moved clause @RefSec{Suppressing Checks} from after 11.6 to
-before 11.6, in order to preserve the famous number ``11.6''
+before 11.6, in order to preserve the famous number @lquotes@;11.6@rquotes@;
 (given the changes to earlier clauses in Section 11).
 @end{DiffWord83}

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent