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

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

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

Hi all,

I was reading the amendments (no too much deeply) which comes with Ada  
2012, and there is an update which I do not understand :

http://www.ada-auth.org/ai-files/grab_bag/Amendment-2-D9.html
In “10.1.2 Context Clauses - With Clauses” says
> Replace paragraph 12: [AI05-0077-1]A name denoting a library item that  
> is visible only due to being
> mentioned in one or more with_clauses that include the reserved
> word private shall appear only within:
> by:
> A name denoting a library_item that is visible only due to being
> mentioned in one or more with_clauses that include the reserved
> word private shall appear only within:

I have check multiple times, word by word, and this ends up to be the  
exact same to me.

An error or something I missed ?

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

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

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.

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

[Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)]

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.

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

[Randy Brukardt]

[-- 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.