CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0028-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0028-1.txt	2007/07/26 02:58:05	1.6
+++ ai05s/ai05-0028-1.txt	2007/10/09 19:27:14	1.7
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 10.2.1(9/2)                                     07-06-18    AI05-0028-1/05
+!standard 10.2.1(9/2)                                     07-10-01    AI05-0028-1/06
 !standard 10.2.1(10.1/2)
 !standard 10.2.1(11.1/2)
 !standard 10.2.1(11.2/2)
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@
 
 For question 2, we must be cautious to avoid creating incompatibilities. Disallowing any
 object of a formal derived type would be a disaster. We want to limit ourselves to the
-case where the formal type is discriminated because that the only case where the actual
+case where the formal type is discriminated because that is the only case where the actual
 and formal types may have different defaults. Incompatibilities should be rare, and
 can easily be fixed with pragma Preelaborable_Initialization.
 
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@
 and protected types with entries, because it doesn't make sense there.
 
 For question 6, it appears that the petitioner is misguided. The rule he proposes
-would have weird effects: for the untagged case is it perfectly possible to have
+would have weird effects: for the untagged case it is perfectly possible to have
 a parent without preelaborable initialization and a derived type with preelaborable
 initialization. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to reject a construct that
 is potentially useful.
@@ -186,19 +186,17 @@
 !corrigendum 10.2.1(9/2)
 
 @drepl
-The creation of an object (including a component) of
+@xbullet<The creation of an object (including a component) of
 a type that does not have preelaborable initialization. Similarly,
-of a descendant of a private type, private extension, controlled type,
-task type, or protected type with @fa<entry_declaration>s; similarly
 the evaluation of an @fa<extension_aggregate> with
-an ancestor @fa<subtype_mark> denoting a subtype of such a type.
+an ancestor @fa<subtype_mark> denoting a subtype of such a type.>
 @dby
-The creation of an object (including a component) that is initialized by
-default, if its type does not have preelaborable initialization. Similarly,
+@xbullet<The creation of an object (including a component) that is initialized
+by default, if its type does not have preelaborable initialization. Similarly,
 of a descendant of a private type, private extension, controlled type,
 task type, or protected type with @fa<entry_declaration>s; similarly
 the evaluation of an @fa<extension_aggregate> with
-an ancestor @fa<subtype_mark> denoting a subtype of such a type.
+an ancestor @fa<subtype_mark> denoting a subtype of such a type.>
 
 !corrigendum 10.2.1(10.1/2)
 
@@ -261,7 +259,7 @@
 initialization. If the @fa<pragma> is applied to a protected type, each
 component of the protected type shall have preelaborable initialization. In
 addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply, these rules apply
-also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.]}
+also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
 @dby
 If the pragma appears in the first list of
 @fa<basic_declarative_item>s of a
@@ -275,7 +273,7 @@
 component of the protected type shall have preelaborable initialization. For
 any other composite type, the type shall have preelaborable initialization. In
 addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), these rules
-apply also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.]}
+apply also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
 
 
 !ACATS test