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.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nac.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is there a way to do large block of source code comments
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:33:36 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lu5k4h$c19$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <f6d1bf8f-cede-435e-9a12-ebae61ea95ca@googlegroups.com>
 <c6juh0F7eb5U1@mid.individual.net>
 <1285756762431293678.582499nonlegitur-futureapps.invalid@reader80.eternal-september.org>
 <c6k4n1F944hU1@mid.individual.net> <lu4fs5$q6q$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1409700818 12329 69.95.181.76 (2 Sep 2014 23:33:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 23:33:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188813
Date: 2014-09-02T18:33:36-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message 
news:lu4fs5$q6q$1@dont-email.me...
...
> On the other hand, in Ada 2012, there now is a way for programmers
> to "explain aspects of the code that are otherwise not
> readily apparent." [ibid.]. This can be achieved, in part, by using
> the contract related aspects of RM 6.1.1. Similarly, a standard
> aspect for things still not readily apparent could be hooked to
> an aspect, as explained below.

If you're talking about aspects in general, they're defined in 13.1.1. This 
certainly wouldn't be a contract aspect (which is a Boolean-valued 
expression that can be ignored, see 11.4.2), so you ought to reference 
13.1.1. Nothing about aspects or contracts (in general) is defined in 6.1.1.

                           Randy.