* Annex I? @ 2005-03-31 9:31 Mattias Lindblad 2005-03-31 21:34 ` Robert A Duff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mattias Lindblad @ 2005-03-31 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Hi, In IEEE 1003.5, even in the 1999 edition, there are some references to Annex I of the LRM (for example in 3.3.17.2). I have noticed that there is no such annex in the current revisions of the LRM, but the references seem to map directly onto Annex J instead. I'm curious about why this annex has changed its name from I to J. I can't find any references to this event. My best guess is that "I" was to easily confused with "1". But I am not able to find a copy of the standard where Annex I exists, so I can't see if there are any differences in the content that would explain the name change. Is there anyone who knows the true story about this? //Mattias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Annex I? 2005-03-31 9:31 Annex I? Mattias Lindblad @ 2005-03-31 21:34 ` Robert A Duff 2005-04-01 8:57 ` Mattias Lindblad 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2005-03-31 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mattias Lindblad" <ml_news@matli.net> writes: > Hi, > > In IEEE 1003.5, even in the 1999 edition, there are some references to > Annex I of the LRM (for example in 3.3.17.2). What's IEEE 1003.5? >... I have noticed that there > is no such annex in the current revisions of the LRM, but the > references seem to map directly onto Annex J instead. > > I'm curious about why this annex has changed its name from I to J. I > can't find any references to this event. My best guess is that "I" was > to easily confused with "1". But I am not able to find a copy of the > standard where Annex I exists, so I can't see if there are any > differences in the content that would explain the name change. > > Is there anyone who knows the true story about this? As I recall, the ISO standard for standards forbids Annexes I and O, probably for the reason you guessed. There might have been a preliminary version with an Annex I, which would have been produced before I had read the ISO standard for standards and obeyed all the nitpicking rules and regulations -- I don't remember. But if so, nobody should be referring to such a preliminary, unapproved version. The Ada RM also has Annexes N and P, but not O. The ISO rules also forbid paragraph numbers. So we put paragraph numbers in the version that most folks look at -- but if you buy it from ISO, it will be sans paragraph numbers. - Bob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Annex I? 2005-03-31 21:34 ` Robert A Duff @ 2005-04-01 8:57 ` Mattias Lindblad 2005-04-01 15:29 ` Robert A Duff 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mattias Lindblad @ 2005-04-01 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw) Thanks for a fast and authoritative answer! > 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. > 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. > 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".) //Mattias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Annex I? 2005-04-01 8:57 ` Mattias Lindblad @ 2005-04-01 15:29 ` Robert A Duff 2005-04-01 23:32 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Robert A Duff @ 2005-04-01 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mattias Lindblad" <ml_news@matli.net> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Annex I? 2005-04-01 15:29 ` Robert A Duff @ 2005-04-01 23:32 ` Randy Brukardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy Brukardt @ 2005-04-01 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw) "Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:wccoecyzfar.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... ... > 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. ...which is an Ada program that directly generates HTML and RTF from input very similar to the old Scribe. (I only changed it when I couldn't figure out how to implement the original code.) But you should see the ugly hackery that is necessary in the RTF output to get the paragraph numbers to show up in the right place automatically. It took me a lot of attempts to find something that would work *and* not crash Word when it is read. (Word still has problems displaying the RTF properly, although simply saving the RTF as a DOC file and reloading it causes it to work just fine. Bizarre.) The HTML doesn't suffer from *those* problems, but the paragraph numbers disappear on some older browsers (hopefully no new ones). The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess. Randy Brukardt. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-04-01 23:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-03-31 9:31 Annex I? Mattias Lindblad 2005-03-31 21:34 ` Robert A Duff 2005-04-01 8:57 ` Mattias Lindblad 2005-04-01 15:29 ` Robert A Duff 2005-04-01 23:32 ` Randy Brukardt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox