Re: Ada example in Figure 53

[brender at gemgrp dot zko dot dec dot com (Ron 603-884-2088)]

DaveA writes:
>1.2 fails to mention whether the appendices are binding.
>It does say italics entries are supplemental, informational.
>That sentence is intended to convey that 1 thru 7 are binding.
>
>But 1.2 says nothing about the Appendices, so
>those are left in hyper-space.
>
>I think 1.2 needs, at least, to clarify that the Appendices
>are non-binding (informational, supplemental) like italics
>entries.

I took a look at several programming language standards immediately at hand:

  - F90 mentions in the Foreward that there are six annexes, all informative.
    In addition, each annex has "(informative)" in the annex title info,
    formatted a la

				  Annex A
			       (informative)
			Glossary of technical terms


  - ANSI C (1989) begins the group of Appendixes with

	Appendixes  (These Appendices are not part of American National
		     Standard X3.159-1989, but are included for information
		     only.)

    Individual appendixes do not repeat this.

  - C90 and C++ include either "(normative)" or "(informative)" at end of
    each Appendix title text.

The last seems the more modern convention and easy to do. I will add
"(informative)" to each of the Appendixes.

I am sure that the statement "The informational content is described in
Sections two through six." uses the term "informational" as a synonym
for "semantic" in contrast with the representation covered in Section 7.
Would it help to replace "informational" with "semantic" in this sentence?

My experience is that Appendixes/Annexes are sometimes normative, sometimes
not, but that main sections are *always* normative (except for conventions
such as our use of italics). Does anyone think this not the case?

Ron