Re: Ada 2012: An Oops in the new Ada amendments ? (in 10.1.2 Context Clauses - With Clauses)

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1037 bytes --]

"Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> wrote in message 
news:op.vg8gu8dwule2fv@garhos...
> OK, sorry, I see: "library item" vs "library_item" (the underscore).
>
> When I see this kind of things, do I have to understand this is a matter 
> of unformally defined item (old version) vs formally defined item (new 
> version) ? If this was made part of an amendment, I suppose the concern is 
> more than typo or formatting.

Right. The second one is also in the syntax font, so it is a more formal 
definition of what is being talked about. (The Standard often uses the 
English equivalent of a syntax form, but those are rarely if ever defined. 
We tend to change them when we see them for a better formal definition, 
although there are some cases where that's wrong. [Specifically, "function 
call" is generally thought to include infix operators, while the syntactic 
"function_call" definitely does not include infix operators. The fun of 
maintaining a Standard.]

                                     Randy.