Have I found an error in the index of the ARM?

Have I found an error in the index of the ARM?

[mgr]

Hello,

While generating some stubs (wiki draft) for the Ada Programming 
wikibook, I've found an inconsistency that ultimately comes from the 
index of Ada 2005 and 2012 Reference Manual.

The index in Wikibooks [1] was probably derived from the RM index [2]. I 
generated the stubs from the actual package names provided by GNAT 
implementation. As can be seen in the Wikibooks index, some  links are 
broken, despite having generated stubs for all the Ada children. The 
index in Wikibooks follows the RM index:

Ada.Wide_Text_IO.Bounded_IO   A.11(4/3)
Ada.Wide_Text_IO.Unbounded_IO   A.11(5/3)

Ada.Wide_Wide_Text_IO.Bounded_IO   A.11(4/3)
Ada.Wide_Wide_Text_IO.Unbounded_IO   A.11(5/3)

But in A.11 [3] the package names repeat Wide[_Wide] at the 
grandchildren level:
4/3
The specification of package Wide_Text_IO.Wide_Bounded_IO is the same as

5/3
The specification of package Wide_Text_IO.Wide_Unbounded_IO is the same

So generated stubs are not linked to the index. I guess the problem is 
in the RM index, because implementors have follow the letter of A.11.


[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Libraries/Ada
[2] http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-0-4.html
[3] http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-A-11.html

Re: Have I found an error in the index of the ARM?

[Randy Brukardt]

"mgr" <mgrojo@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:r39hbm$1ovc$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> While generating some stubs (wiki draft) for the Ada Programming wikibook, 
> I've found an inconsistency that ultimately comes from the index of Ada 
> 2005 and 2012 Reference Manual.

The index isn't normative in any way, so it doesn't get the amount of review 
that the rest of the RM does. (The AARM index also includes a number of 
jokes, a tradition started by Bob Duff and one continued by me. Enjoy 
finding them...)  The index entries are mostly constructed by hand (outside 
of the various entity indexes, and even those are sometimes hand 
constructed).

Did you check the working draft of the RM? Errors in the older standards are 
pretty much there for all time, no one is going to edit those to correct 
them.

Anyway, this sort of comment should be sent to Ada-Comment so that it gets 
reviewed, logged, and eventually corrected. Putting it on a random forum 
means it will easily get lost (my seeing your note is not something that 
should be counted on).

                  Randy Brukardt, ARG Editor.