CVS difference for acs/ac-00118.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file acs/ac-00118.txt

--- acs/ac-00118.txt	2005/10/25 02:12:21	1.1
+++ acs/ac-00118.txt	2006/03/18 06:10:23	1.2
@@ -1,72 +1,15 @@
-!standard  4.1(2)                                    05-10-24    AC95-00117/01
+!standard  4.1(2)                                    06-03-15    AC95-00118/02
 !standard  4.7(0)
 !class Amendment 05-10-24
+!status deleted 06-03-15
 !status received no action 05-10-24
 !status received 05-09-20
-!subject Qualified expressions and "names"
+!subject (deleted)
-!topic Qualified expressions and "names"
-!reference RM95 4.1(2), 4.7
-!from Adam Beneschan 09-20-05
-This is a minor point, but it might be worth considering (probably not
-for 0Y but maybe in the future).
-A function_call can be used as a "name".  Thus, for example, it can be
-used as the prefix of a component selector or array index.  I don't
-know how often this is actually done in practice.  Also, now that
-Object.Operation is one form of component selection (AI-252), it may
-be that this will be done more often.
-If a function is overloaded, one of the ways to disambiguate a
-function call is to use a qualified expression to tell the compiler
-what the return type of the function is supposed to be.
-However, although the function_call can be used as a "name", a
-qualified expression can't---it's not in the syntax of "name".  So if
-you want to use a function_call as a "name", but you need to use a
-qualified expression to disambiguate it, you can't.
-May I suggest that the definition of "name" be expanded to include
-qualified expressions of the form subtype_mark'(expression) where
-"expression" is a function_call?
-I'll admit that this isn't an important change---it's pretty obscure.
-But it would plug what seems to be a little hole in the language.  It
-shouldn't have much impact on the rest of the RM (he said hopefully),
-since a qualified expression of that form would be semantically
-exactly the same as the function call inside the qualified expression.
-Plus it shouldn't be too difficult to implement.
-From: Tucker Taft
-Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2005  1:41 PM
-This whole distinction between what is a name and what is an expression
-is annoying, and should probably be eliminated.  We should have
-done it in Ada 95, and probably should have done it in Ada 2005.
-It just never made it up high enough on the priority list...
-I suppose one option is to keep "name" as is, but make
-"prefix" more flexible.  I don't think we are looking to
-allow more things on the LHS of an assignment or as an OUT
-parameter.  Mostly we want to be able to use <blah>.component
-or <blah>(index) or <blah>.all, without getting slapped
-on the wrist because <blah> is not "officially" a "name."
-From: Adam Beneschan
-Date: Tuesday, September 20, 2005  2:00 PM
-> I suppose one option is to keep "name" as is, but make
-> "prefix" more flexible.
-I like that idea a lot better than the one I came up with.
+This was promoted to AI05-0003-1.

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent