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.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!uio.no!fnord.no!news.stack.nl!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Exceptions in (dynamic) predicates Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:48:01 -0600 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <700ca98a-a6d6-47af-a7d6-fe23cf2729b2@googlegroups.com> <23975e4f-c518-4144-8d2c-020b05f56133@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1385077682 669 69.95.181.76 (21 Nov 2013 23:48:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:48:02 +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: 2345 Date: 2013-11-21T17:48:01-06:00 List-Id: "!class Amendment 202x" just means that this would be included in the next Ada Amendment document (whenever that is requested). At this point, it's mostly an aid for my work on keeping the RM up-to-date with ARG decisions (important for ACATS tests and implementers). As it turns out, WG 9 is leaning toward requesting a Corrigendum from the ARG instead, so these will be changed soon to "!class Corrigendum 2014". Randy. "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:23975e4f-c518-4144-8d2c-020b05f56133@googlegroups.com... > On Friday, November 1, 2013 11:23:04 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message > >> > http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/ai12s/ai12-0022-1.txt >> > Looks like it's a planned addition to Ada 202x. >> >> Well, actually it's an after-the-fact addition to Ada 2012. (AI12-0022-1 >> is >> a Binding Interpretation, not an Amendment 1.) > > I noticed that the !class was "binding interpretation", but the !status is > "Amendment 202x". What does that mean, exactly? Anyway, thanks for the > explanation. > > -- Adam