Re: GNAT documentation question

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> Robert Dewar wrote in message
> <5ee5b646.0207281109.3894cc74@posting.google.com>...
> >James Squire <james.a.squire@boeing.com> wrote in message
> news:<3D417AB2.ADDD3F7A@boeing.com>...
> >> "Grein, Christoph" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > BTW, you quote chapter and verse incorrectly, it should
> >> > be A.13(15).
> >
> >By the way, it seems that this particular documentation
> >requirement got omitted from Annex M, which is probably
> >an oversight.
> 
> No, I think it is intentional (Bob probably can tell us for sure).
> A.13(15) is a "documentation requirement"; Annex M lists
> "implementation-defined characteristics". They're not the same.

I *think* you're right.  I think I created Annex M by searching for
"implementation-defined" and the like, and adding macro calls.  Each
macro call generates a comment in the AARM, and an entry in Annex M.

But no, Bob cannot "tell us for sure".  I don't remember.

> Annex M also omits some of the other core "documentation requirements"
> (J.7.1(12-13); A.5.2(44); as well as A.13(15)) but also includes others
> (A.5.2(45), 13.11(22)), so it hard to tell what the intent is. (This is
> also true for the specialled needs annexes; a large number of the
> "documentation requirements" are not included in Annex M.)

Which lends credence to this theory.

> I think this will have to be taken to the ARG for a (short) discussion,
> so the editor (me) can determine what fix is appropriate.

I'm not sure it's worth fixing.  Annex M is non-normative anyway.

- Bob