CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt	2007/04/05 01:49:14	1.8
+++ ai05s/ai05-0004-1.txt	2007/05/05 01:39:14	1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard C.7.1(17/2)                               07-04-04  AI05-0004-1/05
+!standard C.7.1(17/2)                               07-04-27  AI05-0004-1/06
 !standard 1.1.4(14.1/2)
 !standard 3.8(11)
 !standard 3.8(13.1/2)
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
 !standard 4.1(7)
 !standard 4.3.3(32)
 !standard 7.3(10.1/2)
+!standard 7.4(10)
 !standard 10.1.3(10)
 !standard 10.1.1(17)
 !standard 12.3(7)
@@ -64,6 +65,8 @@
 
 17) 3.8(11) should include operational items.
 
+18) 7.4(10) should include access_definition.
+
 !question
 
 1) Does C.7.1(17/2) apply to calls to Current_Task in an entry barrier? (Yes.)
@@ -132,6 +135,10 @@
 there any good reason that (implementation-defined) operational items should be
 excluded here? (No.)
 
+18) 7.4(10) defines the elaboration of a deferred constant declaration by lists the
+kinds of types that can occur there, but it does not list (anonymous) access_definition.
+One presumes that it too should be elaborated here.
+
 [Other questions here.]
 
 !recommendation
@@ -174,6 +181,8 @@
 
 17) 3.8(11) should say "{operational or }representation item".
 
+18) 7.4(10) should say "subtype_indication{, access_definition,} or".
+
 !discussion
 
 1) entry_barrier is syntactically within entry_body. C.7.1(17/2) however, says
@@ -244,6 +253,10 @@
 any language-defined operation items that could be used here, so this change really
 only applies to implementation-defined items (as well as future ones).
 
+18) This appears to be a change missed by the Amendment work. Obviously, all kinds of
+types should be elaborated; it would be weird to omit one (even if it doesn't do anything
+interesting).
+
 !corrigendum 1.1.4(14.1/2)
 
 @drepl
@@ -345,6 +358,16 @@
 @fa<derived_type_definition>, then the reserved word @b<limited> shall appear
 in the @fa<full_type_declaration> if and only if it also appears in the
 @fa<private_extension_declaration>.
+
+!corrigendum 7.4(10)
+
+@drepl
+The elaboration of a deferred constant declaration elaborates the @fa<subtype_indication>
+or (only allowed in the case of an imported constant) the @fa<array_type_definition>.
+@dby
+The elaboration of a deferred constant declaration elaborates the @fa<subtype_indication>,
+@fa<access_definition>, or (only allowed in the case of an imported constant)
+the @fa<array_type_definition>.
 
 !corrigendum 10.1.1(17)