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: 103376,39c687e8b5e792b8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: ARM questions
Date: 1999/11/02
Message-ID: <7vmkod$pgp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 543469276
References: <381DF32B.72F58E8A@mbox5.singnet.com.sg>
 <381dfb60_1@news1.prserv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x36.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 02 12:17:19 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-11-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <381dfb60_1@news1.prserv.net>,
  "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> The acronym "AARM" stands for "Annotated Ada Reference
Manual," and yes,
> it is different from the manual you cite below.  The
difference is that
> it contains extra information (the annotations) about why the
language
> designers made the choices they did.
>
> The AARM is really for compiler writers and power users.

Notice that the annotations in the AARM have no official status
at all, they are not part of the standard, and do not affect
the interpretation of the standard in any way (they are just
the authors opinions, and observations). They are still often
useful, but it is important to bear this in mind. In particular
the annotations have not been subjected to any formal standards
type review.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.