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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!jbg From: jbg@sei.cmu.edu (John Goodenough) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interpretation of LRM 13.10.1 Message-ID: <6319@fy.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 5 Mar 90 17:01:52 GMT References: <11249@encore.Encore.COM> <20600035@inmet> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University (Software Engineering Institute), Pgh, PA In-reply-to: stt@inmet.inmet.com's message of 2 Mar 90 18:21:00 GMT List-Id: In article Re: Interpretation of LRM 13.10.1 of 2 Mar 90 18:21:00 GMT stt@inmet.inmet.com writes: > By the way, the ARG (Ada Rapporteur(sp?) Group) recently decided to reverse > an earlier decision, and consider a reference to a task > outside of its scope as erroneous (the dreaded task-returning function > problem). Just a reminder that the ARG does not have the last word on interpreting the Standard. ARG decisions are subject to review at higher approval levels and are not definitive until approved by ISO WG9 (responsible for the ISO Ada Standard) and the AJPO (responsible for the ANSI standard). Although I would not expect the decision on functions returning tasks to be reversed after further review, ARG decisions have in the past been reversed in response to objections. John B. Goodenough Goodenough@sei.cmu.edu Chair, ARG Software Engineering Institute 412-268-6391 -- John B. Goodenough Goodenough@sei.cmu.edu Software Engineering Institute 412-268-6391