From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!inmet!ishmael!inmet!stt From: stt@inmet Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Ada9X Revision Request Mailbox Message-ID: <124000040@inmet> Date: 24 Apr 89 12:27:00 GMT Nf-ID: #N:inmet:124000040:000:3052 Nf-From: inmet!stt Apr 24 08:27:00 1989 List-Id: After my posting about "asynchronous entry call," I received some queries about the Ada9X Revision-Request mailbox. It's address is: ada9x@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu Hardcopy goes to: The Ada Joint Program Office ATTN: Ada 9X Project Room 3E114, Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-3080 More information is available via the Ada 9X Bulletin Board at (202) 694-0215 or (301) 459-3685, or via public FTP from ajpo.sei.cmu.edu, in the directory /usr0/users/ftp/public/ada9x. Revision requests are due by October 1989. You may use the format implied by my posting about "asynchronous entry call." However, the revised format, from ~ftp/public/ada9x/FORM9X.HLP is: ------------------------------------- January 1989 Revised Form (Previous version will also be accepted) Ada 9X REVISION REQUEST FORMAT (Please submit one request per form) DATE: Provide date that the request is prepared. NAME: Provide name of the individual who has prepared the request. ADDRESS: Provide the name of the individual's organization and mailing address, including an e-mail address, if applicable. TELEPHONE: Provide telephone number of individual. If request is from outside the United States, please include the appropriate country and city codes. ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A REFERENCE (Section, Paragraph Number): If no chapter is particularly relevant, please so state. TITLE: Provide a short title or key words characterizing the request. PROBLEM: Briefly state the problem. Indicate the most critical aspects to be kept in mind for arriving at a solution, particularly if only a partial solution is possible. IMPORTANCE: Choose one of the following ratings to describe the importance of the request with respect to the overall Ada community, and discuss the consequences if the request is not satisfied by the revision. ESSENTIAL: The revised standard is unlikely to be accepted if this revision request is not supported. IMPORTANT: Nice to have but not essential. Should be supported if minimum negative impact to implementations. ADMINISTRATIVE: Technical correction that makes the standard more consistent with the design intent or less subject to misunderstanding. CURRENT WORKAROUNDS: Provide specific examples of workarounds currently being used that allow partial solution to the problem. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (Optional): Discuss possible solutions for addressing the stated problem. Submit completed form to: The Ada Joint Program Office ATTN: Ada 9X Project Room 3E114, Pentagon Washington DC 20301-3080