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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c89a4b067758a6e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out04b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng2.kpn.DE!news.n-ix.net!news2.arglkargh.de!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is it really Ok to assert that the Ada syntax is a context-free
 grammar ?
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:19:07 -0600
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fpktm3$b78$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <4a448c5c-a4ed-446f-bb8b-67c5ba99927a@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <FWLuj.41404$yE1.10867@attbi_s21> <47bbfb5b$1@news.post.ch>
 <37b7e369-01c8-4adf-8d1e-c40fa7e51cea@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
 <9012d70c-8d61-4e2e-9eda-c12d48f1d9e1@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <47bc40e7$0$21890$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
 <cf265246-91c7-4d08-b9d0-05dd91d9ee82@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com>
 <2b943ca7-7b7e-4bfb-b2b5-bf2818e1e56e@t66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <fpihab$6bv$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
 <4b75dce0-668f-48c9-9302-ff67f33bcf31@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1203632643 11496 69.95.181.76 (21 Feb 2008 22:24:03
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:24:03 +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:19957
Date: 2008-02-21T16:19:07-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message
news:4b75dce0-668f-48c9-9302-ff67f33bcf31@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>On 21 f�v, 01:39, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, that's a problem only in the printed (combined) version, and not
in
>This is still there

Of course it is still there. It'll always be there. As I said in the
previous message:
"Note that the on-line versions track the printed ones in order to avoid
confusion."

We don't update the on-line versions (even though we could) so that people
can reference *the* current Ada standard. Otherwise, if there was a number
of different versions about, it would be very easy for people to be confused
by seeing different things when the same paragraph is referenced.

This particular problem wouldn't be a major concern, but it would hardly be
worth the (4 hour or so) effort to fix just this. And deciding what fixes
(there are more than 50 approved AIs now) to put in and which to leave out
would be a lot of effort.

The working version of the combined standard has this fixed (along with many
other things), but it is not available to the public.

> Do you mean there is another online source for the specification ?

> If there is, I would enjoy to know the link :)

There are no public links; mostly not until a formal effort to update the
standard is launched.

                              Randy Brukardt, ARG Editor