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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/26
Message-ID: <dewar.862097259@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237611565
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <dewar.861970467@merv>
 <mheaney-ya023680002504972023370001@news.ni.net> <dewar.862054383@merv>
 <E99L96.LwI@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<In article <dewar.862054383@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
><<Right now, the RM95 is silent about whether equality composes for
>Bounded_String.  The requirement for composability is therefore ambiguous,
>which isn't acceptable for any kind of requirements document.>>
>
>The RM leaves many aspects of Ada as implementation defined. There is no
>general principle that this is unacceptable.>>

One postscript to my previous comment. It is NOT ambiguous whether there
is a requirement for composability of equality for Bounded_String in the
RM in the absence of the AI. It is crystal clear that there is no such
requirement!

The AI is not addressing the ambiguity of the requirement, it is adding a
requirement where none existed previously!