CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0033-1.txt
--- ai05s/ai05-0033-1.txt 2008/05/10 05:14:33 1.4
+++ ai05s/ai05-0033-1.txt 2008/05/29 04:36:46 1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 13.11.2(16) 08-04-21 AI05-0033-1/03
+!standard 13.11.2(16) 08-05-21 AI05-0033-1/04
!class binding interpretation 06-12-15
@@ -80,9 +80,6 @@
is no other check for Attach_Handler. Since these pragmas are so similar, we
want the rules to be the same.
-[The alternative to this merging is to duplicate the rules; but the whole point
-is to make them identical. Might as well make them completely identical. - RLB]
Replace the first sentence of 13.11.2(16) by:
@@ -111,6 +108,10 @@
It's best to have the same rules for Interrupt_Handler and Attach_Handler,
as it is not unusual to switch between the two.
+We accomplish that by merging the rules, which ought to ensure that they now
+are (and stay) identical. Changing the wording individually leaves the possibility
+of uninitential differences creeping in.
In the example in the question, legality rules are not checked in generic
bodies of instances. However, there is a legality check when the 'Access of
the handler is used (it is always illegal [remember that access-to-subprogram
@@ -123,7 +124,7 @@
in a generic bodies, and a recheck in private parts of generic specifications.
There is a slight incompatibility with this change, but any such handler
-would have to be unused (as taking 'Access in the body is illegal, as the type of
+would have to be unused (as taking 'Access in the body is illegal, since the type of
the access is declared outside of the generic unit). That's a highly unlikely
situation; the pragma should be removed in that case.
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent