From: Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk>
Subject: Re: Shouldn't there be a paragraph like 7.3.2(5/3) in 3.2.4?
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:53:26 +0200
Date: 2014-05-13T10:53:26+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y4y6m54p.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: lkrhqk$een$1@loke.gir.dk
Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Adam Beneschan wrote:
>> FYI, the first sentence is true for both subtype predicates and type
>> invariants. It's actually redundant in 7.3.2(5/3), and the AARM
>> shows it as such
>> (http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12aarm/html/AA-7-3-2.html);
>> 13.1.1(12/3) applies to all aspect clauses on type and subtype
>> declarations. I'd guess that the authors felt that in 7.3.2(5/3),
>> they needed to repeat the rule in the first sentence in order to
>> provide some context to help readers understand the >second sentence.
>
> Right; this is the consequence of other rules and does not need to be
> mentioned in 3.2.4 (or 7.3.2, for that matter).
Thanks for clarifying this.
Greetings,
Jacob
--
<URL: small-talk://work/hallway-meeting/...>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-13 8:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-12 12:54 Shouldn't there be a paragraph like 7.3.2(5/3) in 3.2.4? Jacob Sparre Andersen
2014-05-12 16:09 ` Adam Beneschan
2014-05-12 22:26 ` Randy Brukardt
2014-05-13 8:53 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox