CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0020-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0020-1.txt	2006/11/11 07:07:45	1.1
+++ ai05s/ai05-0020-1.txt	2006/12/16 03:13:18	1.2
@@ -1,21 +1,28 @@
-!standard 4.5.2(9.3/2)                                   06-11-10    AI05-0020-1/01
+!standard 4.5.2(9.3/2)                                   06-12-13    AI05-0020-1/02
 !standard 4.5.5(19.2/2)
 !class binding interpretation 06-11-10
+!status ARG Approved  9-0-2  06-11-18
 !status work item 06-11-10
 !status received 06-08-26
 !priority Medium
 !difficulty Easy
 !qualifier Omission
-!subject Operators of Partial views of fixed point and access types are considered
+!subject Universal operators of fixed point and access types
 !summary
 
+Operators of partial views of fixed point types are considered when determining
+if the predefined universal_fixed operators can be used. Similarly, if equality
+is defined for an anonymous access type with a designated type of a partial or
+incomplete view, then that equality operator is considered when determining if
+the predefined universal_access operator can be used.
+
 Operators of partial views of fixed point and access types (if any) are considered
 when determining if the predefined universal_fixed and universal_access operators
 can be used.
 
 !question
 
-The rules in 4.5.2(19.1-19.4/2) specify when the universal_access "=" operator
+The rules in 4.5.2(9.1-9.4/2) specify when the universal_access "=" operator
 can be used. These rules have rather counter-intuitive consequences.
 
 Consider the example:
@@ -28,7 +35,7 @@
 	end P;
 
 For clients of P, which see the partial view of T, the presence of the
-user-defined "=" in the visible part has to the effect of eliminating the
+user-defined "=" in the visible part has the effect of eliminating the
 "=" for universal_access during overload resolution, and therefore
 equality among values of "access T" unambiguously use P."=" (assuming it's
 visible). Fine, this is presumably what the author of the package
@@ -56,8 +63,8 @@
 !wording
 
 Modify 4.5.2(9.3/2) to:
-  * it is declared immediately within the same declaration list as D or
-    any partial view of D; and
+  * it is declared immediately within the same declaration list as D{ or
+    any partial or incomplete view of D}; and
 
 Modify 4.5.5(19.2/2) to:
 
@@ -70,13 +77,25 @@
 just an oversight of the original wording, probably because completing private
 types with a fixed point type isn't very common.
 
+For "=", the problem can also occur for incomplete types:
+
+   type Incomp;
+   function "=" (Left, Right : access Incomp);
+
+This is perfectly fine, and we don't want the completion to act differently just
+because there is an incomplete view.
+
+This latter case can't happen for fixed-point types, because use of an untagged
+incomplete type as a non-access parameter is prohibited:
+   function "*" (Left, Right : Incomp); -- Illegal!
+
 !corrigendum 4.5.2(9.3/2)
 
 @drepl
 @xbullet<it is declared immediately within the same declaration list as @i<D>; and>
 @dby
 @xbullet<it is declared immediately within the same declaration list as @i<D> or
-any partial view of @i<D>; and>
+any partial or incomplete view of @i<D>; and>
 
 !corrigendum 4.5.5(19.2/2)
 
@@ -92,7 +111,7 @@
 
 !appendix
 
-From: Pascal Leory
+From: Pascal Leroy
 Date: Saturday, August 26, 2006  4:46 AM
 
 The Amendment defines (in AI 364 and AI 420) new name resolution rules