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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,c21db05aee31ddfc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 88.191.71.11 Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!nntpfeed.proxad.net!news.netfinity.fr!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!news.hacking.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Direct Quote from the RM Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:14:59 -0600 Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1195614776 930 69.95.181.76 (21 Nov 2007 03:12:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:12:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18544 Date: 2007-11-20T21:14:59-06:00 List-Id: "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:d5495389-9ee7-44f5-8a3e-864afdc7edee@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 20, 4:32 am, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote: > > For Randy Brukardt. > > > > You did not need to post three copies of you post! I read the first one. > > > > Since, you want to sub-divide the RM that's fine. From 1.1.2 using (2 > > and 3) states the core starts in Section 1 .. 13. So using > > "Section 1 General" paragraph 1. > > Randy, I think he's got you there. Not sure why you think so, none of the language talking about compilation environments is echoed there. And the original discussion was about compilation environments, not about the language itself. > Perhaps I should make a formal > request in Ada-Comment that 1.1.2(3) be changed from "Sections 1 > through 13" to "Sections 1.1.3 through 13". And maybe I'm the right > person to submit this, since I seem someone who worries way too much > about the implications of taking the RM's language hyper-literally. I don't think there is anything wrong with 1.1 or 1.1.1. It *is* unusual that Section 1 isn't marked as Redundant in the AARM, because it is just the normal non-normative introductory text. (Most clauses in the RM start with introductory text that doesn't include anything normative - it just makes the purpose of the clause easier to understand for the reader. A big difference between the Ada standard and many others is the attempt to make it readable to ordinary programmers.) The real problem is that 1.12 doesn't clearly note that introductory text is non-normative - but that's probably because there are some counter-examples. > Maybe this should be brought up at an ARG meeting, for comic relief to > release some stress before delving into the next Baird issue. (I > notice you finally changed the !recommendation section of AI05-0051, > by the way...) :) :) Nawww, Tucker just did his homework and provided a new version, which necessarily included a real recommendation. Of course, if you read his e-mail that ends the !appendix of the e-mail, you'll note that the effect of the AI hasn't changed any. :-) Randy.