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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!munin.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interresting difference in Normal-Returns/Expression-Functions
 and Extended-Returns.
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 21:33:50 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <klsjai$qp5$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <97967083-d21d-4de2-aeb8-76d0d5818993@googlegroups.com>
 <f91ac67c-02c9-43fd-982c-a58567aa9a1b@googlegroups.com>
 <lya9opdwaz.fsf@pushface.org>
 <03e84773-d616-4a46-8189-93ae4ab5fcbf@googlegroups.com>
 <c5f03831-5aec-4045-835a-d1fad2ccec5e@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1367462034 27429 69.95.181.76 (2 May 2013 02:33:54 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 02:33:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Original-Bytes: 1984
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181350
Date: 2013-05-01T21:33:50-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"egilhh" <egilhovik@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c5f03831-5aec-4045-835a-d1fad2ccec5e@googlegroups.com...
...
>whereas 2005 permitted the other behavior. (A language lawyer is needed to
>confirm this)

Sorry, I'm not silly enough to venture into the "Heart of Darkness" without 
an ARG-certified need. :-)

My gut feeling is that nothing should have changed, but the rules in 
7.6.1(11) were so brain-damaged that pretty much anything would have been 
"correct" for anonymous access types. We decided that such 
under-specification was nasty and tied all of this down.

                             Randy.