+> 9.10 when I started wondering about all of the bullets 9.10(3-10).
+> was all changed from "task" to "logical thread of control".
+> really need this rule about tasks as well.
+written, it subsumes a similar statement using "logical thread of control."
+> is still sequential with actions that follow the parallel construct.
+> reason to make such an assumption (no signalling would happen).
+Yes, that is a good reason to leave it as is.
+the same logical thread of control, they are clearly part of the same task.
+> Thoughts on this aside?
+Your suggested change makes sense to me.  Good catch!
+> > clear to me why we needed both 9.10(3) and 9.10(13) in previous Ada.
+> > (If we didn't, then we don't need a new version of 9.10(3), either.
+> 9.10(3) talks about the language specifying an order.
+> control, but no order is specified by the language.
+otherwise. The AARM notes sort of imply that, but that seems irrelevant.
+> So they are quite different.
+left out of this reply).
+are sequential if an order is specified as well as when it is unspecified.
+the loop have to occur before actions taken by the call). So now we need both.