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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,6399f50737c8a1c8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Annex I? Date: 01 Apr 2005 10:29:16 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <1112261489.654833.47450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <1112345856.897270.49410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1112369494 7754 192.74.137.71 (1 Apr 2005 15:31:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:31:34 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10226 Date: 2005-04-01T10:29:16-05:00 List-Id: "Mattias Lindblad" writes: > Thanks for a fast and authoritative answer! You're welcome. > > What's IEEE 1003.5? > > "POSIX Ada Language Interfaces- Part 1: Binding for System > Application Program Interface (API)", i.e. the bindings between > Ada and POSIX. Ah, yes. > > There might have been a preliminary version with an Annex I [...] > > But if so, nobody should be referring to such a preliminary, > > unapproved version. > > I agree. The IEEE standard refers to a version of the Ada standard > issued 15 February 1995. However, the first edition of the IEEE > standard was issued 1996, so one could guess that they started with > a preliminary version of the Ada standard while writing the standard > and didn't notice the change in annex numbering in the final version. Could be. I actually printed out the final version of the Ada 95 standard in early December, 1994. This is the version that was given to ISO. It took a couple-or-few months to get through the ISO beaurocracy. I'm still a little bit annoyed that everybody calls it "Ada 95", making it look like we were 2 years late, when we were actually only one year late. ;-) > > The ISO rules also forbid paragraph numbers. > > Isn't it possible to get some kind of exemption from those rules? My C > and C++ standards (from 1999) both have paragraph numbering, and I > believe they are bought from ISO. Or maybe those standards are simply > not standard compliant. (In addition to the paragraph numbering, > the C standard actually has an "Annex I".) I don't know. The last time I read the ISO standard for standards was in 1994. It has probably changed since then. In practise, the real rule is that you have to do what some guy at ISO tells you. I tried to obey the standard for standards, and sent a copy to this guy, who marked it up in red. Then I obeyed the red marks, and *that* was good enough. He was very concerned about the fonts and other details on the title page and the first few pages, but he obviously didn't read the bulk of the RM. I think they allowed *line* numbers, as in numbering every fifth line: 5, 10, 15, 20, or something like that. But the Ada-style paragraph numbers are much more aesthetically pleasing. I think we tried to get ISO to agree, but they refused. And the reviewers were very concerned that the Ada 9X standard have the same look and feel as the Ada 83 one. I believe the index contains paragraph numbers even in the official ISO version. We could get away with that because the index is "informative" rather than "normative". I've always found that terminology amusing -- in order to be "normative" one must write incomprehensible (uninformative) gibberish. ;-) You should see the ugly hackery that was necessary to get the paragraph numbers to look like the Ada 83 ones. Perl scripts for both preprocessing the input to Scribe, and postprocessing the output. Randy has since switched to a completely different system. - Bob