CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0033-1.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file 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
 !standard C.3.1(7/2)
 !standard C.3.1(8/2)
 !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]
-
 (2)
 
 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