From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
	ip-172-31-65-14.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dirk@orka.cs.kuleuven.be. (Dirk Craeynest)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada 2022 Language Reference Manual to be Published by Springer
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:13:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Ada-Europe, c/o Dept. of Computer Science, KU Leuven
Message-ID: <u6chud$1nkv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <u6bnu9$3uro9$1@dont-email.me> <efc916e4-99dd-4ec6-b196-267252871934n@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:13:33 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d38ec7688e992d9170a0da1606c0c792";
	logging-data="56991"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18V5b7E7VMzSjskykCIMuXYd+Z+OBMbzTA="
Summary: Draft 35 is what was submitted to ISO
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eSxu5RSL3E7B/KltYxk0+jJPM1o=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: dirk@orka.cs.kuleuven.be. (Dirk Craeynest)
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65314
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

AdaMagica  <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> wrote:
>> ...
>> The Ada 2022 LRM is available online: 
>> www.ada-auth.org/standards/ada22.html. 
>
>This ist still Draft 35. The final version is not yet available.

Note that the page at the above URL mentions:

  "This is draft 35. This draft contains all ARG-approved AI12s. This
  is the draft that has been submitted to complete the standardization
  process."

So draft 35 *is* what was submitted to ISO.

Randy, the RM editor, is aware that this and a few other web pages
still have to be updated now ISO published the new RM, and he assured
me after the WG9 meeting yesterday that this is on his "to do list".

>See also https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.ada/c/P26SS3L7kA0 - Ada 23 at Last!

That message claimed about the ISO document: "The ToC is very different
from Draft 35."

While draft 35 is what was submitted to ISO, the documents indeed are
not identical.  Though I would not say the ToC's are "very different".

Yes, the introductory chapters in the ISO document are slightly
different from those in the RM on ada-auth.org, and there's no Annex on
"Obsolescent Features" nor a "Glossary" (that was removed in draft 35
anyway).  All this is due to specific requirements that ISO has for its
standards.  There are more differences, such as the ISO document not
having any paragraph numbers as those are not allowed in ISO standards.

But the bulk of the ToC is identical, apart from those differences
required by ISO.  Most importantly: the described language in both
documents is identical.

HTH

Dirk
Dirk.Craeynest@cs.kuleuven.be (for Ada-Belgium/Ada-Europe/SIGAda/WG9)

* 27th Ada-Europe Int. Conf. Reliable Software Technologies (AEiC 2023)
* June 13-16, 2023, Lisbon, Portugal, www.ada-europe.org/conference2023