From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Received: by 2002:ac8:4e51:0:b0:3f8:6bf6:7403 with SMTP id e17-20020ac84e51000000b003f86bf67403mr907335qtw.0.1686759339717; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a81:c948:0:b0:55d:6af3:1e2c with SMTP id c8-20020a81c948000000b0055d6af31e2cmr960040ywl.3.1686759337970; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:15:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=18.195.216.32; posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf NNTP-Posting-Host: 18.195.216.32 References: User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ada 2022 Language Reference Manual to be Published by Springer From: AdaMagica Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:15:39 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Received-Bytes: 3007 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65316 List-Id: Dirk Craeynest schrieb am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023 um 16:13:36 UTC+2: > AdaMagica wrote: > >This ist still Draft 35. The final version is not yet available. > Note that the page at the above URL mentions: > > "This is draft 35. This draft contains all ARG-approved AI12s. This > is the draft that has been submitted to complete the standardization > process." > > So draft 35 *is* what was submitted to ISO. Yes; I know... > That message claimed about the ISO document: "The ToC is very different > from Draft 35." Funny, when I first opened the preview, the complete table of contents with page numbers could be read. The ISO document had far less pages then Draft 35 (951 pages). I wondered how this could be... Now the ToC is without page numbers, so I cannot compare. If you compare the ISO ToC and the Draft 35 one, you'll see that clause and subclause numbers differ. So old references like RM 3.5 will lead astray. --- ISO locuta, causa finita. --- > While draft 35 is what was submitted to ISO, the documents indeed are > not identical. Though I would not say the ToC's are "very different". > > Yes, the introductory chapters in the ISO document are slightly > different from those in the RM on ada-auth.org, and there's no Annex on > "Obsolescent Features" nor a "Glossary" (that was removed in draft 35 > anyway). All this is due to specific requirements that ISO has for its > standards. There are more differences, such as the ISO document not > having any paragraph numbers as those are not allowed in ISO standards. > > But the bulk of the ToC is identical, apart from those differences > required by ISO. Most importantly: the described language in both > documents is identical.