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: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT vs UTF-8 source file names
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 22:02:07 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyy3s0yn8w.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <lytw55kei5.fsf@pushface.org> <lyefuia5ur.fsf@pushface.org>
	<lyeftw2tlc.fsf@pushface.org> <ojhspu$sb2$1@dont-email.me>
	<ly60f72p1g.fsf@pushface.org> <ojihrl$qu2$1@dont-email.me>
	<lyfue91k4a.fsf@pushface.org> <ojngbr$rcp$1@dont-email.me>
	<lybmow1pfk.fsf@pushface.org> <ojoo32$573$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="92a1e7c5b06125805561664626b58e07";
	logging-data="23146"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WfLr+vsDYk5Y2uUGC8ifAOnHMr/IzIvU="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ub2IhPQD01Tzy7mm7UukUHXdjFw=
	sha1:8LvvBI8le1tG6bv1P5p92qxzPsg=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47322
Date: 2017-07-07T22:02:07+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
> news:lybmow1pfk.fsf@pushface.org...
> ...
>> The rest is about GNAT's behaviour; to reiterate, ARM 2.1(16/3) says
>>
>>   "An Ada implementation shall accept Ada source code in UTF-8
>>   encoding, with or without a BOM (see A.4.11), where every character
>>   is represented by its code point."
>>
>> which for GNAT is not met unless either there is a BOM or -gnatW8 is
>> used.
>
> The Standard says "shall accept"; it has nothing to say about what 
> handstands are needed to get the required behavior

I suppose I'm more used to military requirements, where (IMO) handstands
would be unacceptable, and "shall accept" means just that. Perhaps
"shall be able to accept"? But (having read your other note) I see why
this isn't going to change.