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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,71aa8acfc8368f1c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: BLAS
Date: 2000/05/16
Message-ID: <wccg0ritzrf.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 624096744
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <E12rFJO-00008Q-00@Baldrick> <wccvh0g123s.fsf@world.std.com>
 <8fpib6$sbt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> Yup, that's definitely true, I am not sure why one needs to
> reference the AARM here, the deal is simply that a subtype
> mark is a name, and an attribute reference is a name, so this
> does indeed look like a bug

Well, I suppose one never *needs* to reference the AARM, assuming one
can imagine all the consequences of the RM in one's head (and assuming
the RM has no bugs ;-)).  The AARM in this case says what you said above
-- apparently whoever wrote that paragraph thought it was not obvious
from the RM (even though it of course follows from the RM).

- Bob