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!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada.Calendar.Formatting.Image (or Time_Of) changing the time Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 17:29:32 -0600 Organization: JSA Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: Injection-Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 23:29:34 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk; posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226"; logging-data="15912"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk" 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 V6.00.2900.7246 Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:58175 Date: 2020-03-05T17:29:32-06:00 List-Id: "Optikos" wrote in message news:f94395b7-f2de-4c49-8edd-b24bfa64cc37@googlegroups.com... >On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 5:49:35 PM UTC-6, Randy Brukardt wrote: >> "Simon Wright" wrote in message >> news:lyv9nl8p6w.fsf@pushface.org... >> ... >> > There was a conversation on Ada-Comment in June last year, in which it >> > turned out that compiler implementers may have have been >> > misinterpreting >> > the ARM. It was quite confusing. >> >> Not just a conversation, but also a Binding Interpretation AI (which >> therefore applies to Ada 2012 compilers), AI12-0336-1. > >Shouldn't these Binding AIs that take effect from a past edition of the ISO >standard onward (and not merely incorporated into Ada 2020 or Ada >202X post-2020) ..be an ISO/IEC corrigendum..? Allowing errata be >permanently published semi-officially in any forum other than >cummulatively in an official ISO/IEC corrigendum seems to be against the >ISO/IEC rules. Not necessarily. ISO has very strict limits on the number of Corrigenda that can be issued for a particular standard; after that the only choice is to update the Standard. Remember that from ISO's perspective older standards don't actually exist; only the latest version is relevant to ISO. So the difference between non-Corrigendum Binding Interpretations and Amendments is non-existent to ISO. But as a practical matter, people continue to use older standards and they need corrections (not allowing implementers to fix language bugs would be worse; why would anyone want to implement nonsense?). Such users need guidance as well, as do the implementers. For ACATS purposes (which maintains testing all of the older standards except Ada 83), generally non-Corrigendum binding interpretations are optional for older standards, which means that either the original wording or the new wording is allowed. (We prefer the new wording, of course, but there's no mechanism to require it.) OTOH, Amendments are ignored for the purposes of testing older standards -- that's why we classify them differently. Randy.