CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0013-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0013-1.txt	2008/01/18 07:45:24	1.9
+++ ai05s/ai05-0013-1.txt	2008/01/19 07:25:30	1.10
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 7.6(9.4/2)                                 07-01-17    AI05-0013-1/08
+!standard 7.6(9.4/2)                                 08-01-17    AI05-0013-1/09
 !standard 13.12(8)
 !standard D.7(3)
 !standard D.7(4/2)
@@ -68,8 +68,8 @@
     the partition, this may impose either (or both) of two kinds of
     requirements, as specified for the particular restriction:
         - A restriction may impose requirements on the units comprising
-          the partition which are enforced via a post-compilation
-          check.
+          the partition which are enforced via a post-compilation check
+          unless otherwise specified for a particular restriction.
         - A restriction may impose requirements on the runtime behavior
           of the program. In this case, and only in this case, the
           runtime behavior associated with a violation of the requirement
@@ -657,6 +657,37 @@
 
 One of us forgot to change away from the rejected "shall" wording. I've
 done that, and made a few edits to the discussion.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Stephen W. Baird
+Date: Friday, January 18, 2008  12:03 PM
+
+> Your proposed rewording of 13.12(8) has lost the "unless otherwise
+> specified". There are restrictions (those in 13.12.1 in particular) that do
+> not apply partition-wide. That needs to be reflected in this wording
+> somehow.
+
+Good point.
+
+How about replacing
+    - A restriction may impose requirements on the units comprising
+      the partition which are enforced via a post-compilation check.
+with
+   - A restriction may impose requirements on the units comprising
+     the partition which are enforced via a post-compilation check
+     unless otherwise specified for a particular restriction.
+?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Date: Friday, January 18, 2008  1:38 PM
+
+I guess that would work, although my initial thought was that it was
+excepting from just being "enforced by a the post-compilation check" rather
+than both parts including the "the units comprising the partition" part. Not
+sure of a better way to put it, though. Maybe Tuck has an idea.
 
 ****************************************************************