ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 Draft N409r

The meeting began at 9:00 am. 

Erhard Ploedereder, the President of Ada-Europe, provided some welcoming remarks on behalf of Ada-Europe and the conference.

Steve Michell (Canada) volunteered to serve as meeting secretary and was so appointed without objection. 

This agenda was accepted as presented.

Background

The draft minutes of Meeting #41 are document N400. The minutes include corrections suggested by John Barnes, Randy Brukardt, Pascal Leroy, Jim Moore and Erhard Ploedereder.

Discussion

The minutes were accepted as presented. 

Resolution

[Resolution 42-1]

Canada

Stephen Michell (HOD)

[Report]

France

Jean-Pierre Rosen (HOD), Pascal Leroy

[Report]

Germany

Erhard Ploedereder (HOD)

[Report]

Italy

Tullio Vardanega (HOD)

[Report]

Japan

Kiyoshi Ishihata (HOD)

[Report]

Switzerland

(Unable to attend)

[Report]

UK

John Barnes (HOD), Alan Burns

[Report]

USA

Randy Brukardt (Acting HOD), Currie Colket, Tucker Taft

[Report]

Convener

Jim Moore

Chair of ARG

Pascal Leroy

Chair of ASIS RG

Currie Colket

Chair of HRG

Alan Burns

Project Editors

Randy Brukardt

Those sending regrets include: 

Ted Baker, Ken Dritz, Clyde Roby, Alfred Strohmeier, Joyce Tokar

Canada

No report.

France

[Discussion of Planned Amendment to the Ada Language Standard]

Met Friday June 14 to discuss upcoming WG9 meeting. Working under a temporary agreement to work with WG9, pending resolution of arrangement for financing participation. Significant discussion on scope of the next amendment.

Germany

No report.

Italy

Tullio Vardanega, email 31 May 2002

a) I am currently trying to reconstitute an interest group [in Italy] to follow up and interact with my participation in the WG9 activities. b) I have accepted Pascal Leroy's invitation at becoming an observer in the ARG and I will attend their meeting at Vienna

Japan

Kiyoshi Ishihata, email 25 May 2002

JIS standard of Ada was (finally) published on February 20, 2002. We translated only Chapter 1 to Japanese. For all other parts of ARM, we refer to the English version. All parts of the original ARM text are included in the JIS standard.

Switzerland

No report from Switzerland, for the simple reason that there was no activity related to the Ada standard.

UK

A meeting of the BSI had discussed various AIs. John Dawes, who had worked for ICL fror many years died recently; he was an excellent reviewer and will be greatly missed.

USA

No report.

Advance Report

I am very pleased to see that the Italian National Body has chosen to participate in WG9. I welcome Tullio Vardanega as their representative. Italy participates as a "P" (Participating) Member of WG9 despite the fact that Italy is only an "O" (Observing) Member of our parent body, SC22. You may recall that it was WG9 that requested the change in JTC1 procedures that permits this situation. I am pleased that our effort has produced concrete benefits for us.

Discussion

It was suggested that other nations might be willing to follow the example of Italy.

Action Item 42-1

(Convener) Send a note to Spain (possibly Alexandro Alonso) suggesting that Spain might consider participation in WG9. [Convener's note: Spain does not appear to be a member--either "Participating" or "Observing"-- of SC22. This would imply that WG9 participation would be informal. I am checking.]

Action Item 42-2

(Convener) Send a note to Russia (possibly Sergey Rybin) suggesting that Russia might consider participation in WG9. [Convener's note: Russia is a P member of SC22, hence, fully qualified to participate in WG9.]

Advance Report

I am also pleased with Springer-Verlag's publication of the Consolidated Reference Manual, which merges the text of the Technical Corrigendum with the 1995 standard. Our gratitude goes to Alfred Strohmeier for arranging the publication, to Randy Brukardt for preparing copy suitable for hardcopy publication, and to both of them for arranging the distribution of copies to those who played key roles in the development of the Corrigendum.

Oral Report

It should be noted that Ada-Europe provided copies of the Consolidated Reference Manual to its membership and to members of the ARG.

Advance Report

Both Ada-Europe and ACM SIGAda have submitted a request for Category C liaison with WG9. I hope that WG9 will "confirm" the requests at this meeting and send them on to SC22 for the sequence of approvals authorizing the liaison relationship. Liaison participation by these two organizations will permit WG9 to utilize the technical expertise of their respective memberships.

Although SC22's approval is only the first in the sequence needed to authorize the liaison relationship, I will choose to treat it as the substantive approval, regarding the actions by JTC1 and ITTF to be administrative in nature. Accordingly, I will implement the liaison relationship immediately upon approval by SC22. I expect this to occur at their plenary meeting in August.

Advance Report

I anticipate that the first benefit of the liaison relationship will be the ability to more effectively staff the membership of our Rapporteur Groups. For some time, the Chairs of our Rapporteur Groups have permitted informal participation by individuals who have not been formally authorized by their National Bodies -- a practice that goes beyond the procedures of JTC1. Following SC22 approval of the liaison, I plan to rationalize participation in Rapporteur Groups by identifying each participant as either a representative of their National Body or a representative of a liaison organization. This will restore our compliance with the procedures of JTC1 while retaining our ability to draw upon a diverse base of technical talent.

Prior to the fall 2002 meeting of WG9, I plan to take the following administrative steps:

• I will consult with the chairs of the Rapporteur Groups to identify the active participants in each RG.
• I will consult with the Heads of Delegation to determine which of the participants are to be regarded as representatives of the National Bodies. I will ask the HODs to confirm these designations with whatever degree of formality is appropriate in their nation.
• I will consult with our Category C liaison organizations to determine if they wish to designate participants in the Rapporteur Groups.
• I will repeat the consultations until we arrive at membership lists that suit the needs of each RG, provide a diverse base of technical expertise, and comply with the procedures of JTC1.
• At the fall 2002 meeting of WG9 and each meeting thereafter, we will officially "reappoint" the membership of each RG.

Until we can implement these steps, I ask that each Rapporteur Group chair continue their current informal practices for managing the membership of their RG. They have my full confidence and support in performing this.

Advance Report

As you know, one year ago, WG9 requested free availability of Technical Report 15942. This request has not yet been implemented because of an unfortunate sequence of events. If the matter had gone according to plan, the request would have been approved at the plenary meeting of SC22 in September, then approved at the plenary meeting of JTC1 in November. Because of the events of September 11, the SC22 plenary was poorly attended, falling short of a quorum. It was agreed that any contested issue would be subjected to confirmation by letter ballot. Free availability for the Technical Report brought objection from one National Body -- on the principle of free availability rather than anything specific to the request. The request was approved by a subsequent letter ballot, but missed the JTC1 meeting. Recently, it was approved by letter ballot of JTC1 and submitted to ITTF for implementation. I continue to track the issue.

Advance Report

Many of you are aware that the US Army, via its contract with The MITRE Corporation, had been funding the editor of the Amendment project, as well as the participation of the Convener in WG9. The Army elected to reduce that funding level in February, due in part to the financial demands of the current war. Regrettably, we lost the ability to fund the editor's work in this manner. I believe that this event must force us to reconsider the scope of the amendment project. Later in the meeting, I have scheduled an agenda item for that purpose.

Advance Report

Although funding for the WG9 Convener continues through September 2002, funding beyond that point is not assured. I offer my personal assurance that I will continue to execute the responsibilities of the Convener until my term ends in September 2003.

Resolution 38-4

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Technical Report be withdrawn when it reaches the end of its five-year review period. The Technical Report is relevant to the 1987 version of the Ada language standard rather than the current version: 

• ISO/IEC TR 11735:1996, EXTensions for real-time Ada 

For status, see [Project Editor Maintenance Report, 11735]

Action Item 39-5

(HRG Chair): Draft a New Work Item Proposal for the Technical Report providing guidelines and rationale for the use of the Ravenscar profile. 

For status, see [Report of the Annex H Rapporteur Group]

Action Item 40-2

(UK): Make a recommendation regarding the changes necessary for 13813. 

For status, see: [Project Editor Maintenance Report, 13813]

Action Item 40-3

(ARG Chair): Upon receipt of the UK recommendation, consider the packaging appropriate for the functionality of the current 13813. 

For status, see: [Project Editor Maintenance Report, 13813]

Resolution 40-6

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Standard be confirmed when it reaches the end of its five-year review period: 

• ISO/IEC 13813:1998 Generic packages of real and complex type declarations and basic operations for Ada (including vector and matrix types) 

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Standard be withdrawn when it reaches the end of its five-year review period: 

• ISO/IEC 13814:1998 Generic package of complex elementary functions for Ada 

For status, see: [Project Editor Maintenance Report, 13813]

Resolution 40-7

WG9 endorses the following New Work Item Proposal [see N388] for amendments to the Ada Language Standard and forwards it to SC22 for approval.

For status, see: [Project Editor Maintenance Report, 8652]

Resolution 40-8

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 requests that SC22 request JTC1 and any other appropriate bodies to take action to ensure that ISO/IEC TR 15942 be made freely available on a web site. 

For status, see [Project Editor Maintenance Report, 15942]

Background

Meeting #43 was scheduled by email ballot [N403] for December 13, 2002 in Houston, TX in conjunction with the SIGAda conference. The resolution below schedules meeting #44.

Discussion 

It was decided that Meeting #44 will be held Friday, June 20, 2003 in conjunction with the Ada-Europe conference in Toulouse, France.

Resolution

[Resolution 42-3] 

Background

 [None]

Open Items

 [None]

Prior Discussion

From the Minutes of Meeting #41 [N400]:

Report of ARG Chair:

... It becomes evident that at this stage integrating new features in the language in a way that is both compatible with existing code, and not too disruptive to implementations, is extremely challenging. Other than for the Editor of the project, there is no funding for this language design effort. This means that the work that is needed for the amendment is done on a voluntary basis, and in practice that relatively little progress takes place between meetings. The Rapporteur feels that relatively few amendment AIs will be mature enough in 2005 for inclusion in the official Amendment document. Note that the situation is different for AIs that have to do with normal maintenance of the language, because in these cases it is much easier to understand the problem at hand and the impact of proposed solutions. 

The procedures of the ARG are being revised to (1) deal with the fact that we are now going to work on extensions to the language, (2) put them in accordance with the rule of the parent bodies and (3) reflect existing practice. The revised procedures have been drafted by the Editor and Rapporteur of the ARG, and submitted to the convener of WG 9 for review. They are expected to be approved by the ARG at its next meeting, and will be presented at the next meeting of WG 9. 

One of the significant changes of the new procedures has to do with the disposition of comments submitted to the ada-comment mailing list. Because the ARG is soliciting input from the Ada community regarding possible amendments to the language, a sizeable number of suggestions have been received by email. Previously, each email received on ada-comment would result in an AI. But the ARG felt that if the same rule were applied to suggestions for amendments, there would be a danger of spending precious ARG time on proposals that are not well thought-out or would have an unacceptable impact on the Ada community. Therefore, the Editor and the Rapporteur are in charge of doing an initial triage of the comments, only creating AIs for those that seem to deserve detailed consideration by the ARG. A new category of document, ACs (for Ada Commentaries) is created to record the suggestions and any discussion pertaining to them. ARG members may request that ACs be turned into AIs if they think a suggestion has some value. These new procedures will be presented officially to WG9 at the next meeting.

France suggested that those who submit suggestions for Ada 2005 should first send them to their own national body before sending the suggestion to the ARG. The purpose would be to determine that their is some support for the proposal before burdening the ARG. Pascal will take this suggestion to the ARG meeting for further consideration.

Advance Report

The ARG met in Bloomington, MN, in October and in Cupertino, CA, in February. As is now customary, about 1/3rd of each meeting was spent on "normal" AIs, i.e. corrections to problems in the existing RM, and 2/3rds of each meeting was spent on amendment AIs.

Good progress was made on amendments AIs. A few (relatively simple) amendment AIs are ready for approval at this meeting (see list below). But more importantly a number of major amendments have reached a point where they are stable enough that there is a consensus among the ARG that the technical solution is sound. The next step is to write the RM wording for these amendments, which is not a small feat given that they may have a sizeable impact on the language. Amendments that have reached this point include unchecked unions, handling of mutually dependent types, multiple inheritance through the use of interfaces, package Directory_Operations, and private with clauses, among others. These are all important improvements to the language, and barring unexpected technical difficulties, chances are that they will make it into the final amendment document.

The ARG has also started exploring more controversial or speculative amendments, like downward closures or assertions, but these topics still need a lot of brainstorming before it can be decided whether they are worth pursuing or not.

Some vendors have voiced concerns over the usefulness of some of the extensions being considered by the ARG, on the basis that it is unclear if the implementation effort can be justified. This is a legitimate concern, although it is nearly impossible to get any hard data regarding (1) the implementation cost and (2) the benefits to the Ada community of each amendment. It would be good if the ARG could get some guidance on the scope of the revision (especially considering funding difficulties) although it is unclear how this should be achieved.

The ARG has a number of proposals for extensions from the Ada community, but this input has been in general quite disappointing, either because equivalent capabilities already exist, or because the proposed extensions would be too complex or too expensive to integrate in the language. However, very useful input was recently received from the IRTAW regarding possible real-time extensions. A "call for APIs" was circulated in the Ada community explaining that independent groups could undertake standardization work on APIs or reusable libraries, with some guidance from the ARG.

The ARG has its "usual" motion for the June meeting for approval of a series of AIs. The cited AIs can be retrieved from the ACAA web site for AIs.

Amendment AIs:

AI95-00257-01/04 2002-05-10 -- Restrictions for implementation-defined entities

AI95-00260-01/04 2002-05-10 -- How to control the tag representation in a stream

AI95-00267-01/04 2002-05-10 -- Fast float to integer conversions

AI95-00273-01/02 2002-05-09 -- Use of PCS should not be normative

Normal AIs:

AI95-00085-01/08 2002-05-09 -- Append_File, Reset and positioning for Stream_IO

AI95-00161-01/07 2002-05-14 -- Default-initialized objects

AI95-00225-01/03 2002-05-14 -- Aliased current instance for limited types

AI95-00229-01/05 2002-05-14 -- Accessibility rules and generics

AI95-00233-01/03 2002-05-09 -- Inheritance of components of generic formal derived types

AI95-00238-01/03 2002-05-09 -- What is the lower bound of Ada.Strings.Bounded.Slice?

AI95-00240-01/04 2002-05-09 -- Stream attributes for limited types in Annex E

AI95-00242-01/02 2001-10-18 -- Surprise behavior of Update

AI95-00246-01/05 2002-05-14 -- View conversions between arrays of a by-reference type

AI95-00247-01/02 2002-05-14 -- Alignment of composite types

AI95-00272-01/02 2002-05-10 -- Pragma Atomic and slices

The procedures of the ARG have been revised by the Editor and the Rapporteur based on the input of the convener of WG9 (see document N400 for the justifications of this revision). They were reviewed by the ARG at the Bloomington meeting, and have been approved without substantial changes. They are now formally submitted to WG9 for approval. The revised procedures are contained in N406. They are also available at the ARG web site.

Discussion

The ARG is encouraging independent groups to develop well-specified proposals for APIs. A guideline document was distributed with the call for proposals.

Tucker Taft asked if "Amendment" AIs are treated differently than "Normal" AIs when implementing changes to the conformity test suite. Randy Brukardt responded that Normal AIs no longer automatically result in new tests. Therefore, there is no practical difference in the treatment of the two categories.

Pascal Leroy explained that the purpose of procedures is to ensure the ability of members and national bodies to review ARG decisions.

Resolutions

[Resolution 42-8]

[Resolution 42-6]

Background

 [None]

Open Items

 [None]

Prior Discussion

From Minutes of Meeting #41 [N400]:

Currie Colket mentioned that the ASIS RG is revising its charter. The convener noted that charter revisions must be approved by WG9.

ASIS RG is considering the preparation of a New Work Item Proposal to revise and extend ASIS to keep pace with Ada 2005. The ASIS RG may reconsider some of the design goals for the specification.

Oral Report

Currie Colket reported that the ASIS RG has begun planning for the development of amendments to the ASIS standard in coordination with the planned amendment to the Ada standard. Steve Blake cannot continue as project editor; however, he has agreed to continue serving until a replacement is found.

Discussion 

There was discussion that, aside from the NP for the ASIS standard, the ASIS RG lacks any formal terms of reference to define the scope of its work. 

Action Item 42-3

(Convener and Chair of ASIS RG): Confer to develop a charter or other terms of reference defining the scope of work of the ASIS RG.

Resolutions

 [None]

Background

 [None]

Open Items

Action Item 39-5:

(HRG Chair): Draft a New Work Item Proposal for the Technical Report providing guidelines and rationale for the use of the Ravenscar profile. 

Status: OPEN. The spring 2001 meeting of the HRG confirmed that they wish to move ahead on drafting a Technical Report providing advice on the usage of the Ravenscar profile. They developed a list of contents and assigned an author to each section. They plan to develop a first draft within six months. They plan to bring an NP to the WG9 meeting following completion of the initial draft.

Prior Discussion

From Minutes of Meeting #40, [N389]:

The recent meeting of the HRG confirmed that they wish to move ahead on drafting a Technical Report providing advice on the usage of the Ravenscar profile. They developed a list of contents and assigned an author to each section. They plan to develop a first draft within six months. They plan to bring an NP to the WG9 meeting following completion of the initial draft. 

The HRG also discussed the continuing role of Annex H of ISO/IEC 8652. They discussed the desirability of changing its title to High-Integrity rather than Safety and Security. The HRG might recommend that the fourth section of Annex H should be reworked to better fit with the recently completed TR 15942. They also considered tracking the usage of relevant pragmas implemented by various vendors. 

It is understood that the HRG may work with the University of York or other institutions in obtaining material that might be incorporated into a Technical Report. 

From Minutes of Meeting #41 [N400]:

The HRG has produced an initial 35-page draft of a TR providing guidance on usage of the Ravenscar profile. At yesterday's meeting, they confirmed the structure and the style of the guide. By the next meeting of WG9, they will produce a substantially completed draft. They meeting also reviewed the contents of Annex H of ISO/IEC 8652:1995. 

The International Real-time Ada Workshop (IRTAW) will look at real-time issues during its meeting in April 2002.

The HRG could draft a New Work Item Proposal and send it and the existing draft forward to SC22 so the SC22 could begin the approval of a New Work Item. Alan said that the NP had not yet been drafted for two reasons: (1) there was not a good estimate of the resources available; and (2) they desired a method to be sure that the report could be made freely available. The Convener described the procedures for making materials publicly available.

After the options were described, Alan suggested that the University of York (UK) could publish a draft and then contribute it to ISO for further processing.

Alan mentioned that there were no plans to revise TR 15942.

Oral Report

Alan reported that there has been no formal meeting of the HRG since the last meeting of WG9. Progress has been made via email communication and a meeting in planned in Autumn 2002. The HRG continues to work with the ARG in developing exact text for the amendment to describe the incorporation of the Ravenscar profile. Work on the guidelines document is progressing. It is anticipated that the guidelines will first be published by the University of York and then contributed to WG9.

Discussion 

There was a discussion regarding the "Free Availability" of Technical Reports. It was asked, on the one hand, why so many reports are available and, on the other hand, why it is so tedious to get permission to make 15942 available. The Convener responded that the initial implementation of free availability explicitly provided for a large backlog. However, new ones still go through formal JTC1 and IEC procedures.

There was a discussion of price of standards in France and USA. No resolution of the matter, except to track it for now.

Resolutions

[None] 

Document Status

ISO/IEC 8652:1995 Information Technology--Programming Languages--Ada, 22.10.01, Randy Brukardt and Erhard Ploedereder, Project Editors, supported by the Ada Rapporteur Group.

ISO/IEC 8652:1995/COR.1:2001, Technical Corrigendum to Information Technology--Programming Languages--Ada, 22.10.01, Randy Brukardt and Erhard Ploedereder, Project Editors, supported by the Ada Rapporteur Group.

Project Status

Working Draft, 8652:1995/AMD.1, Randy Brukardt and Pascal Leroy, Project Editors, supported by the Ada Rapporteur Group

The request for subdivision [N388] of Project 22.10.01 was endorsed by WG9 Resolution 40-7 [N389], approved by SC22 N3310 on 2001-09-12, and forwarded to JTC1.

Open Items

Resolution 40-7

WG9 endorses the following New Work Item Proposal [see N388] for amendments to the Ada Language Standard and forwards it to SC22 for approval.

Status: CLOSED. The request was forwarded to SC22 as a request for subdivision of the existing project for ISO/IEC 8652. The subdivision was reported approved by SC22 in their document N3310 and forwarded to JTC1. JTC1 has not objected.

Report

[None] 

Discussion

There was a discussion about the status of providing funding to support a dedicated editor for the Amendment. The Convenor reported that he had previously secured funding to support the Convenor role, but the editor role was currently unfunded. The Convenor stated that discussions were ongoing with various agencies and delegations to try to find a solution. Members will be kept abreast of the situation.

We discussed how AI's can be best integrated in an amendment to the document. A preliminary draft of an amendment has been circulated to a few reviewers. A new batch of AIs will be integrated into the draft soon.

Document Status

ISO/IEC TR 11735:1996, Information Technology--EXTensions for Real-Time Ada, 22.35, Nasser Kettani, Project Editor

JTC1 has voted to withdraw this standard, an action that will be implemented by year-end 2002. The Technical Report addressed the Ada 87 language and is effectively replaced by the 1995 language standard.

Open Items

Resolution 38-4:

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Technical Report be withdrawn when it reaches the end of its five-year review period. The Technical Report is relevant to the 1987 version of the Ada language standard rather than the current version: 

• ISO/IEC TR 11735:1996, EXTensions for real-time Ada 

Status: OPEN. This resolution has been reported to SC22 and endorsed (Resolution 00-22) at their plenary meeting in September 2000. JTC1 will ballot the withdrawal in early 2002. Implementation of the resolution can be expected before the end of 2002.

Report

[None]

Document Status

ISO/IEC 13813:1998, Information Technology--Programming Languages--Generic Packages of Real and Complex Type Declarations and Basic Operations for Ada (including Vector and Matrix Types), 22.10.04, Don Sando and Ken Dritz, Project Editors

WG9 is considering the question of maintenance to this standard. The standard addresses the Ada 87 language. Portions were effectively included in the 1995 language standard.

ISO/IEC 13814:1998, Information Technology--Programming Languages--Generic Package of Complex Elementary Functions for Ada, 22.10.05, Jon Squire and Ken Dritz, Project Editors

WG9 has voted to withdraw this standard by year-end 2004. (The action awaits approval by JTC1.) The standard addressed the Ada 87 language and is effectively replaced by the 1995 language standard.

Open Items

Resolution 40-6:

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Standard be confirmed when it reaches the end of its five-year review period: 

• ISO/IEC 13813:1998 Generic packages of real and complex type declarations and basic operations for Ada (including vector and matrix types) 

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Standard be withdrawn when it reaches the end of its five-year review period: 

• ISO/IEC 13814:1998 Generic package of complex elementary functions for Ada 

Status: OPEN. The recommendations above were endorsed by SC22 Resolution 01-07 at their September 2001 plenary meeting. They have been forwarded to JTC1 for approval (during 2003) and implementation by ITTF (during 2004).

Action Item 40-2

(UK): Make a recommendation regarding the changes necessary for 13813. 

Status: CLOSED. Initial report was included in N393. Initial draft revision submitted by the editor was N397. Reflecting additional consideration, a further draft and a final report from the UK were circulated as N404 and N405, respectively. The material has been forwarded to the ARG for their consideration and recommendation.

Action Item 40-3

(ARG Chair): Upon receipt of the UK recommendation, consider the packaging appropriate for the functionality of the current 13813. 

Status: OPEN. The recommendation was forwarded 6 June 2002.

Prior Discussion

From Ken Dritz, email, 18 April 2001

13813 and 13814 are, of course, for Ada 83. I dug drafts of them, eight years old, out of my files; I don't think I ever saw the finished standards. I shall presume that my drafts reflect what was in the final standards. 

13813 defines a generic complex types package, an array exceptions package, a generic real arrays package, and a generic complex arrays package. Of these, only the first is contained in Ada 95. As I recall, the reason for that was that we didn't want to standardize array subprograms "prematurely"; we wanted to wait until such future time as syntax and semantics for generalized array "sections" (multidimensional slices) could be defined in the core language. The generic complex types package in Ada 95 is functionally comparable to the one in 13813, but not identical. 

13814 defines a generic complex elementary functions package. The generic complex elementary functions package in Ada 95 is functionally comparable to the one in 13814, but not identical. The biggest difference is that the latter separately imports a long list of complex operations as generic formal subprograms with box defaults (normally expected to be defined by an instantiation of the generic complex types packages at the place where the generic complex elementary functions package is instantiated), whereas the former imports just an instantiation of the generic complex types package. 

Given that 13813 provides considerably more functionality than does the only part of it that was incorporated into Ada 95, it might be reasonable to reaffirm that standard. However, I believe there is a technical problem in doing so. The generic complex types package defined in 13813 renames an exception defined by the generic elementary functions package in 11430, which has been withdrawn. The generic complex elementary functions package also renames that exception. 

From Minutes of Leuven meeting, [N389]

At the suggestion of Barnes, we separate the discussion of the two standards. There is consensus that 13814 should be withdrawn. Discussion continues on the future of 13813. Michell asks if WG9 currently has the expertise needed to revise 13813 because the needed changes might not be simple. Tokar suggests that we might leave the standard in place for now and ask the ARG to include the functionality in the planned amendment to 8652. No one knows of any vendor implementations of the standard but Barnes says that implementation by users is straightforward. 

We break for coffee. Following the break, the convener suggests the following plan: 

• For now, withdraw 13814 and reaffirm 13813. 
• Ask UK to study whether small or large changes are needed in 13813. 
• Send UK recommendation to ARG. 
• Ask ARG for recommendation of packaging of changes. (The range of possibilities to be considered should include publication as part of a textbook.) 

There is general agreement with this approach. 

From Minutes of Bloomington meeting, [N400]

The report of the UK was submitted prior to the meeting. [It is included in the minutes.]

On the morning of the meeting, the editor of 13813, Don Sando, submitted an initial working draft [N397] to implement the recommendation of the UK.

As the UK had not had an opportunity to study the draft, it was decided that the UK should determine that the draft is appropriate to the recommendation and then forward both the draft and the recommendation to the ARG.

Report

From Don Sando (Editor), email, 4 March 2002

Many thanks for an excellent review; I am very pleased that you caught the one major problem prior to submission to WG9. I have attached my latest draft (in Word) ... [N404]

From John Barnes, email 5 June 2002

... I now attach the final report [N405] from the UK regarding 13813.

Discussion

The UK report and the project editor's proposal for a revised 13813 have been forwarded to the ARG for action.

Resolution

[Resolution 42-7]

Document Status

ISO/IEC 15291:1999, Information Technology--Programming Languages--Ada Semantic Interface Specification (ASIS), 22.15291, Steve Blake and Clyde Roby, Project Editors, supported by the ASIS Rapporteur Group.

Open Items

[None]

Advance Report

Email, Clyde Roby, 26 May 2002: No update for the ASIS document at this time.

Oral Report

Steve Blake can no longer serve as editor of the ASIS standard but will serve until a replacement is named. Sergey Rybin (Russia) is a possible replacement.

ASIS RG has received a number of comments on the standard and are in the process of developing plans for revising the standard.

Discussion

A question arose as to the existence of a plan for responding to the comments.

Action Item 42-4

(Convener and ASIS RG Chair): Review ISO procedures for handling defects and develop an appropriate mechanism. Ensure that there are terms of reference for the ASIS RG.

Document Status

ISO/IEC TR 15942:2000, Guidance for the Use of Ada in High Integrity Systems, 22.15942, Brian Wichmann, Project Editor, supported by the Annex H Rapporteur Group.

Open Items

Resolution 40-8:

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 requests that SC22 request JTC1 and any other appropriate bodies to take action to ensure that ISO/IEC TR 15942 be made freely available on a web site. 

Status: OPEN. The request [See N390] was forwarded to SC22 for endorsement. SC22 approved the request by letter ballot (see SC22 N3360, 2002-01-14). JTC1 has approved the request (see SC22 N3403). The document has been forwarded to ITTF for implementation of the request.

Report

[None]

Action Item 42-5 

(Convener): Receive a copy of the source files for 15942 and forward to chair of HRG to ensure redundant storage.

Document Status

ISO/IEC 18009:1999, Conformity Assessment of an Ada Language Processor, 22.18009, Erhard Ploedereder, Project Editor, supported by the Ada Rapporteur Group.

Open Items

[None]

Report

[None]

Report

Email from Ted Baker, 23 May 2002

I have nothing much new to report as Liaison to WG15 and IEEE PASC. The only active project related to Ada is POSIX 1003.5g, and that is only marginally active. I sent out an e-mail on that back in April, requesting (again) volunteers to help with the project. There was one new response, from Alejandro Alonso, which I forwarded to Diane Schleicher. 

I have been following e-mail of the Austin Group, which has taken over the job of maintaining and updating the consolidated Unix-POSIX specifications. It seems this consolidation has increased the C-centricity of the project. One member of the group suggested, I think not entirely in jest, that the C language, C++ language, and POSIX C API standards be brought together under one group. The notion was that the C language can be considered "core" C++, and the POSIX API can be considered part of the standard libraries. 

I append my previous e-mail, for those who may have missed it:

Note regarding procedure

In procedural terms, this portion of the meeting will be conducted in the form of a "Committee of the Whole." Typically, discussion of a business item requires the tabling of a motion and discussion for and against the proposed motion. Instead, a possible outcome of this discussion would be the phrasing of a motion, either for immediate consideration or for a subsequent email ballot. Other outcomes might include formation of an ad hoc group for further study or referral to an existing Rapporteur Group.

Terms of Discussion

The discussion will consider three topics:

• What should be the scope of the planned amendment? Can we formulate any guidelines regarding what should be in the amendment versus what should be deferred to a future amendment or revision?
• What, if any, topics should receive particular emphasis in the amendment? Can we identify particular portions of the language that urgently need improvement?
• How can we determine the degree of support in the community for language changes? Do we have effective contact with the vendor community? -- with the user community? How can the work of an editor be supported?

Submitted Prior to Meeting 

As planned, AFNOR/Ada group met friday June 14th in the morning. The meeting was devoted to preparing the WG9 meeting.

Apart from the usual motions that did not raise any concerns, the discussion focused on the scope and procedures for preparing the amendment to the language (Ada0Y). On the topics mentioned in the WG9 agenda, AFNOR reached some conclusions that it is pleased to offer to WG9 for consideration:

AFNOR proposes that the first step to defining the scope of the amendment should be the definition of acceptability criteria for proposed amendments. Such criteria could include:

• Implementability (vendors concerns). Can the proposed feature be reasonably implemented?
• Need (users concerns). Does the proposed feature fulfill an actual user need?
• Stability (users concerns). Would the proposed feature appear disturbing to current users?
• Competition and popularity. Does the proposed feature help improve the perception of Ada, and make it more competitive with other languages?

As for the scope itself, the consensus was that no change should be turned down a priori, but that a very strong need should be necessary to accept a feature that would create an incompatibility. Each proposal should be weighted independently against the previous criteria.

Amongst the language changes, only the issue of mutually dependent types was perceived as "important", although not "urgent".

In general, the issue of new APIs was deemed more important than changes to the language. Although a number of high quality interfaces are freely available, a significant part of the Ada community seems to be reluctant to using components that do not wear an official ISO stamp. Providing more APIs would help decrease the perception that Ada is poorer than other languages on this aspect.

Given the decreasing funding for the standardization process, it is clear that future efforts should rely more on the community-at-large. National bodies and category C liaisons can play an important role by pre-processing suggestions. More specifically, on the issue of APIs, AFNOR suggests the following process:

• Proposals for APIs should be prepared by groups of volunteers, using usual means (internet, workshops...) to make the proposal as open as possible. The proposal would be reviewed first by a national body (or category C liaison), then submitted to WG9.
• WG9 would then simply accept the proposal, reject it, or ask for improvements. In no case would WG9 be involved in designing a proposal.
• If an API is evaluated as "good enough", it should be accepted. In the area of APIs, immediate availability and reasonable usability are often more important than perfect (and unachievable) quality.
• - If a proposal is accepted, the role of the ARG would be only to turn the proposal into a language appropriate for inclusion as an amendment. The ARG would not be in charge of designing, changing, or improving an API.

Results

Aside from one action item (listed below), there were no formal results of the Committee of the Whole. The convener will review the discussion and circulate questions via email.

Action Item 42-6

(Currie Colket and Erhard Ploedereder) In cooperation with SIGAda, develop a proposal for a light-weight method for maintaining Ada APIs and present it to WG9.

[None] 

Background

Ada-Europe has submitted a request for Category C Liaison with SC22/WG9. [See N402]

Discussion 

The convener had originally proposed the following resolution: 

"In accordance with 3.3.1.1 of the JTC1 Directives, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 confirms the Category C liaison request of Ada-Europe contained in N402 and forwards the request to SC22 for its consideration and any actions needed to effect approval of the liaison. The convener of WG9 is directed to implement the liaison relationship upon approval by SC22."

It was generally agreed that the final sentence should be removed for the reason that it is not necessary for a resolution to advise the convener to execute his duties.

Resolution

[Resolution 42-4]

Background

ACM SIGAda has submitted a request for Category C Liaison with SC22/WG9. [See N407]

Discussion 

The convener had originally proposed the following resolution:

"In accordance with 3.3.1.1 of the JTC1 Directives, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 confirms the Category C liaison request of ACM SIGAda contained in N407 and forwards the request to SC22 for its consideration and any actions needed to effect approval of the liaison. The convener of WG9 is directed to implement the liaison relationship upon approval by SC22 and SIGAda's parent organization, the Association for Computing Machinery."

It was generally agreed that the final sentence should be removed for two reasons: (1) it is unnecessary for a resolution to advise the convener to execute his duties; (2) by the time of the meeting, SIGAda's parent organization had provided its approval.

Resolution

[Resolution 42-5]

Action Item 42-1

(Convener) Send a note to Spain (possibly Alexandro Alonso) suggesting that Spain might consider participation in WG9. [Convener's note: Spain does not appear to be a member--either "Participating" or "Observing"-- of SC22. I am checking.]

Action Item 42-2

(Convener) Send a note to Russia (possibly Sergey Rybin) suggesting that Russia might consider participation in WG9. [Convener's note: Russia is a P member of SC22, hence, fully qualified to participate in WG9.]

Action Item 42-3

(Convener and Chair of ASIS RG): Confer to develop a charter or other terms of reference defining the scope of work of the ASIS RG.

Action Item 42-4

(Convener and ASIS RG Chair): Review ISO procedures for handling defects and develop an appropriate mechanism. Ensure that there are terms of reference for the ASIS RG.

Action Item 42-5 

(Convener): Receive a copy of the source files for 15942 and forward to chair of HRG to ensure redundant storage.

Action Item 42-6

(Currie Colket and Erhard Ploedereder) In cooperation with SIGAda, develop a proposal for a light-weight method for maintaining Ada APIs and present it to WG9.

Resolution 38-4

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Technical Report be withdrawn when it reaches the end of its five-year review period. The Technical Report is relevant to the 1987 version of the Ada language standard rather than the current version: 

• ISO/IEC TR 11735:1996, EXTensions for real-time Ada 

Status: OPEN. This resolution has been reported to SC22 and endorsed (Resolution 00-22) at their plenary meeting in September 2000. JTC1 will ballot the withdrawal in early 2002. Implementation of the resolution can be expected before the end of 2002.

Action Item 39-5

(HRG Chair): Draft a New Work Item Proposal for the Technical Report providing guidelines and rationale for the use of the Ravenscar profile. 

Status: OPEN. This work is delayed pending additional study and publications in the open literature prior to committing to standardization.

Action Item 40-2

(UK): Make a recommendation regarding the changes necessary for 13813. 

Status: CLOSED. Initial report was included in N393. Initial draft revision submitted by the editor was N397. Reflecting additional consideration, a further draft and a final report from the UK were circulated as N404 and N405, respectively. The material has been forwarded to the ARG for their consideration and recommendation.

Action Item 40-3

(ARG Chair): Upon receipt of the UK recommendation, consider the packaging appropriate for the functionality of the current 13813. 

Status: OPEN. The recommendation was forwarded 6 June 2002.

Resolution 40-6

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Standard be confirmed when it reaches the end of its five-year review period: 

• ISO/IEC 13813:1998 Generic packages of real and complex type declarations and basic operations for Ada (including vector and matrix types) 

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 recommends to SC22 that the following Standard be withdrawn when it reaches the end of its five-year review period: 

• ISO/IEC 13814:1998 Generic package of complex elementary functions for Ada 

Status: OPEN. The recommendations above were endorsed by SC22 Resolution 01-07 at their September 2001 plenary meeting. They have been forwarded to JTC1 for approval (during 2003) and implementation by ITTF (during 2004).

Resolution 40-7

WG9 endorses the following New Work Item Proposal [see N388] for amendments to the Ada Language Standard and forwards it to SC22 for approval.

Status: CLOSED. The request was forwarded to SC22 as a request for subdivision of the existing project for ISO/IEC 8652. The subdivision was reported approved by SC22 in their document N3310 and forwarded to JTC1. JTC1 has not objected.

Resolution 40-8

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG9 requests that SC22 request JTC1 and any other appropriate bodies to take action to ensure that ISO/IEC TR 15942 be made freely available on a web site. 

Status: OPEN. The request [See N390] was forwarded to SC22 for endorsement. SC22 approved the request by letter ballot (see SC22 N3360, 2002-01-14). JTC1 has approved the request (see SC22 N3403). The document has been forwarded to ITTF for implementation of the request.

At 1:00 pm, the meeting was recessed subject to the call of the convener. It is anticipated that the convener will prepare questions based on discussion during the Committee of the Whole and circulate the questions via email ballot.

During the period when the meeting was in recess, the convener drafted instructions to the ARG, based on the material discussed during the Committee of the Whole. After four rounds of review and commenting the instructions were approved by email ballot. Six nations voted to approve (Canada, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, UK, and USA), no nations; no nations voted to disapprove; no nations abstained; one nation was unable to respond (France). The approved instructions were posted as document N412.

The convener declared the meeting to be adjourned on 14 October 2002.