CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0046-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0046-1.txt	2007/04/11 00:57:10	1.2
+++ ai05s/ai05-0046-1.txt	2007/07/26 02:58:06	1.3
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
-!standard 6.3.2(18)                              07-04-04    AI05-0046-1/01
+!standard 6.3.2(18)                              07-06-18    AI05-0046-1/02
 !class binding interpretation 07-04-04
+!status ARG Approved  10-0-1  07-06-03
 !status work item 07-04-04
 !status received 07-04-04
 !priority Medium
@@ -41,7 +42,7 @@
 Modify 6.3.1(18) as follows:
 
 Two profiles are fully conformant if they are subtype-conformant, and corresponding
-parameters have the same names and {either both or neither have null_exclusions and
+parameters have the same names and {both or neither have null_exclusions and
 they} have default_expressions that are fully conformant with one another.
 
 !discussion
@@ -52,6 +53,28 @@
 policy of a project, is seems silly to adopt different conventions for the specification
 and the body, especially considering that in practice one is often obtained by a
 simple copy-and-paste from the other.
+
+Moreover, unlike the "in" parameter mode, there is a maintenance hazard with the current
+rule. If the "tagged" reserved word is removed from the example, the completion no longer
+conforms and is illegal. Similarly, if the subprogram is moved so that it is not primitive,
+the completion is illegal.
+
+For all of these reasons, we require exact matching of null_exclusions for full conformance.
+
+!corrigendum 6.3.1(18)
+
+@drepl
+Two profiles are @i<fully conformant> if they
+are subtype-conformant, and corresponding parameters
+have the same names and have @fa<default_expression>s
+that are fully conformant with one another.
+@dby
+Two profiles are @i<fully conformant> if they
+are subtype-conformant, and corresponding parameters
+have the same names and both or neither
+have @fa<null_exclusion>s and they have @fa<default_expression>s
+that are fully conformant with one another.
+
 
 !ACATS test