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: 103376,88bfb5de8ca8a1fa
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.tornevall.net!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2012: An Oops in the new Ada amendments ? (in 10.1.2 Context
 Clauses - With Clauses)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:32:36 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <i3sk26$b2n$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <op.vg8f6eyiule2fv@garhos> <op.vg8gu8dwule2fv@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1281479558 11351 69.95.181.76 (10 Aug 2010 22:32:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:32:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13094
Date: 2010-08-10T17:32:36-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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.