Re: Shouldn't there be a paragraph like 7.3.2(5/3) in 3.2.4?

[Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@gmail.com>]

On Monday, May 12, 2014 5:54:52 AM UTC-7, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Reading the fine print on subtype predicates and type invariants, I
> noticed that section 3.2.4 (on subtype predicates) doesn't have a
> paragraph matching 7.3.2(5/3) (on type invariants).
> 
> 7.3.2(5/3): Within an invariant expression, the identifier of the first
>             subtype of the associated type denotes the current instance
>             of the type. Within an invariant expression associated with
>             type T, the type of the current instance is T for the
>             Type_Invariant aspect and T'Class for the
>             Type_Invariant'Class aspect.

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.

                                  -- Adam