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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2bcab3f121e1e3a7
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.8.229 with SMTP id u5mr4299794pba.0.1316736347133;
        Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni2875pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!r26g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Optional body for nested generic
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 17:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <487f7158-2f6f-4fb8-8c3e-7ca58f0d1794@r26g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
References: <m262kn2xcf.fsf@pushface.org>
 <wcc8vpj8cto.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <8ad3b626-8608-4561-8d8f-bf11e7e8efc0@en1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <j5eau0$4qq$1@munin.nbi.dk> <wcc8vpg1wje.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <j5gerj$4nt$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1316736347 2045 127.0.0.1 (23 Sep 2011 00:05:47
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 00:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r26g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2011-09-22T17:03:59-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sep 22, 4:03=A0pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> The test was disputed (not by us, I don't think), and the ARG at the time
> confirmed it (I'm pretty sure there is an Ada 83 AI to this effect, but I=
'm
> too lazy to look it up right now).

It's probably AI83-400.  There's also AI83-856, but there's no
discussion in that AI and it might be essentially a duplicate.

                       -- Adam