Christoph writes:
> There is RM 1.1.2(38) describing the purpose of NOTEs. They
> fall under the heading Implementation Advice.
No, they are notes (their own category); they have a different formatting
because of the JTC1 rules for writing standard says so.
> These certainly should not move. But they are numbered.
> > Advice and notes on the usage of the Ada programming language.
> > This material is informative.
>
> Is this meant to be a new RM text label with the heading
> Usage like the others described in 1.1.2?
Yes, indeed it is already there (see the Ada 202y Draft 1).
> Then the Usage notes must be moved. Since NOTEs are numbered,
> moving some of them will alter their numbers.
> (I see, NOTEs in RM 2012 were numbered continuously across clauses,
> RM2012 3.9 NOTEs 70-73 were renumbered RM2022 3.9 NOTEs 1-4.)
Right. We adopted the current note numbering rules starting with Ada 2022.
Ada 95-Ada 2012 used a weird per-chapter/section/clause numbering. The rules
require the numbers to be consecutive. We've never worried about the Note
numbers because the need for consecutive numbers ensures that they have to
change in almost all circumstances.
>> The form is fine, but I think these notes are clearly some that
>> should NOT move. These are about using the RM itself,
>> not about > the usage of the Ada language.
>
> I clearly see the difference, but the RM 1.1.4 NOTEs imho
> clearly state how Ada program text should be formatted, so
> they ARE Usage advice, not advice about the RM.
Humm. I didn't read them that way (I was reading them as explaining how
examples are formatted), but I see how that probably would be a better way
to read them (and I obviously didn't spend enough time thinking about them!
I wonder why the ISO Editor didn't reject these notes??). So you are right
that they should be moved.
>> There are a lot of notes that are mainly describing language
>> design decisions which of course have some effect on the usage
>> of the language (almost everything does, after all).
>
> I've noted that - and indeed between 1.1.4 and 4.6, I've not
> found a single NOTE (except of course the ones of AI 55) that
> could undoubtedly be called Usage advice.
> There is e.g. a boundary case in 3.5.1(12). I'm not sure how
> to treat this since there is no use of words like "should"
> etc as stated in AI 55.
I used the previous tools (and the ISO comments) to find all of the
"obvious" cases, including all of the notes that used "should". Those should
all be in AI22-0055-1 (which is now approved and in Editorial Review -- I
did quite a bit of rewriting of the details of the changes as many were
incorrect [we don't want a Usage header in the middle of a list of notes!]
But I'm done with that now, the version in the Google Docs is pretty final -
pending review from other ARG members [especially John Barnes]).
>> Someone will have to move the results into the Google Doc for
>> AI22-0097-1, and my experience is that can chew up a lot of time
>> (getting the formatting right is necessary for the tools to work,
>> and futzing with formatting is a notorious time sink).
>
> Since I do not know the tools, I'll have to let this work to
> poor Tucker.
He doesn't really, either. It's just standard Google Docs editing (meaning
editing like any usual word processor) using the standard styles as
suggested in the template document. Anyone can do it. (No one will get it
perfectly right, I have to clean up lots of junk, but that's for me to gripe
about...)
Randy.
________________________________________________________
You have received this message because you subscribed to the Ada-Comment
mailing list. To leave the Ada-Comment list, send an email with
'leave Ada-Comment' in the body to [email protected]. For help
on the other commands available, send 'help Ada-Comment' to the same address.
Problems? Send mail to [email protected]. This list is operated by the
Ada Resource Association, Inc., PO Box 8685, New York NY 10116-8685.
