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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9f437cff8842e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Enumeration representation
Date: 1999/09/13
Message-ID: <7rhl1r$nc6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 524267466
References: <37D8E3BC.175DB72C@newtech.it> <yecn1uu9xy2.fsf@king.cts.com>
 <7rcceh$anh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <yeczoyt2hxx.fsf@king.cts.com>
 <37DB15A2.2CF36CC8@home.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Sep 13 01:46:38 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-09-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37DB15A2.2CF36CC8@home.com>,
  Bryce Bardin <bbardin@home.com> wrote:
> AI95-00167/01, which is proposed to be a binding
interpretation, but is
> not yet written up in final form nor approved by either the
ARG or WG9,
> as far as I know.


Right, but this part of the semantics is completely obvious
and completely non-controversial, so the intended intepretation
can be taken to be what is written up in this AI. Remember that
an AI is only an Ada intepretation, so it does not change the
RM. Thus it is less important than you think that something
should be formally stamped *unless* it is controversial.

Everyone knows that Valid should operate in the obvious useful
way, the issue is exactly how to word this in a formal manner!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.