What up with the "Name Calling"!!!

I choose not to when "J-P. Rosen" basically called me a lier and worst 
with the usage of "FUD". And cutting down does not make what I say 
wrong it just means that you have no logical answer that would stand 
up in court. 

The problem is the RM uses to many words that have multiple meaning
under many conditions for computer science. This leads to a language 
corruption and death of that language which none of us wants that for 
Ada. So, instead of using these words like "implementations" the RM 
should clarify itself by using words which has only one meaning under 
computer science. And after 15 plus years from the creation of "Ada 95" 
and its two extensions ( 2005, 2012 ) it about time that the Ada 
community correct the wording in the RM before branching into "Ada 2020". 



Like in Ada's BNF the "attribute_designator" is not define. 

Clarification would be simple 

    attribute_designator ::= standard_attribute_designator
                           | compiler_provider_attribute_designator


    standard_attribute_designator ::=  Access    |  Access |  Address
                                     ... |  Write

        For functionally and examples of the all Standard attributes
        See Annex K Section: Standard.

        < list of provider restrictions to Standard attribute >

    compiler_provider_attribute_designator ::= 
                                  < complete list of provider_attributes >


Note: Each provider of a compiler shall edited the previous statement 
      and provide a complete list of all attributes. Then append
      Annex K Section: Provider section, to list the functionally and 
      give an example of each attribute provided created by the provider.





Addition to Annex N : Glossary ( to clarify the word "provider" )


  Provider:  An entity that one can receive the entity's version
             (author) Ada compiler and/or Run-Time Libraries.



Since "entity" is not commonly used in computer languages it does not 
need to be define.


And example of Providers 
   Adacore
   IBM
   RRSoftware
   ...

GCC and Linux (any version) is not a provider because they are not 
the author.  They only give another access to Adacore GNAT for a
OS and the edited source.



In <jb3pm8$ng9$1@dont-email.me>, "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:
>Le 29/11/2011 17:16, AdaMagica a �crit :
>> ... Rest of all this nonsense skipped.
>> 
>> Do we really need to further reply to all this incredible junk?
>Unfortunately yes.
>
>Not for anon whose case is desperate, but because the news are archived
>on many sites and then googled. People should be warned that this IS
>nonsense.
>
>-- 
>---------------------------------------------------------
>           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
>Adalog a d�m�nag� / Adalog has moved:
>2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX
>Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00