CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0052-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0052-1.txt	2008/02/05 02:46:56	1.3
+++ ai05s/ai05-0052-1.txt	2008/02/05 03:02:06	1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 4.8(5.3/2)                               08-02-01    AI05-0052-1/03
+!standard 4.8(5.3/2)                               08-02-04    AI05-0052-1/04
 !standard 7.5(6.1/2)
 !class binding interpretation 07-05-15
 !status work item 07-05-15
@@ -56,15 +56,17 @@
 
 Add after  7.5 (6.1/2):
 
-A type is inherently limited if it is one of the following:
+A view of a type is inherently limited if it is one of the following:
 
-a) An explicitly limited record
+* An explicitly limited record;
 
-b) A tagged limited private type
+* A tagged limited private type;
 
-c) A task type, a protected type, or a synchronized interface.
+* A task type, a protected type, or a synchronized interface;
 
-d) A type derived from an inherently limited type.
+* A type derived from an inherently limited type;
+
+* A type with a part that is of a inherently limited type.
 
 AARM note: an inherently limited type is a type that cannot become nonlimited
 subsequently in a private part or in a child unit. If a view of the type
@@ -223,5 +225,83 @@
 c) A task type, a protected type, or a synchronized interface.
 
 d) A type derived from an inherently limited type.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  1:20 PM
+
+It seems that the list should also include types that have a part
+that is of an inherently limited type.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert A. Duff
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  2:48 PM
+
+> > A type is inherently limited if it is one of the following:
+...
+
+Is it intended to be a property of a type, or a property of a view of a type?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  2:59 PM
+
+Most definitely a property of a type, but  one that can be determined  
+by a partial view alone.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  3:00 PM
+
+> It seems that the list should also include types that have a part
+> that is of an inherently limited type.
+
+You're right, I thought that fell out automatically, but it doesn't,  
+so it has to be added to the list.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  3:20 PM
+
+I don't quite understand the requirement to be
+determinable from the partial view.  What about
+an untagged limited private type?  You really
+don't know anything about the full type.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  8:51 PM
+
+> Is it intended to be a property of a type, or a property of a
+> view of a type?
+
+To be used in Legality Rules, it generally will have to be a property of a
+view of a type. (Else we would break privacy.) As such, the definition may
+not be appropriate for dynamic rules.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, February 4, 2008  9:01 PM
+
+> I don't quite understand the requirement to be
+> determinable from the partial view.  What about
+> an untagged limited private type?  You really
+> don't know anything about the full type.
+
+Correct, and clearly such a view of a type is *not* inherently limited.
+Anything else would break privacy for Legality Rules (which is what Ed is
+using the term for). Thus it is clear this is a view-specific term.
+
+More generally, the Standard is very confused about view vs. non-view (and
+indeed we have an AI to fix this, at least in the sense of acknowledging that
+the Standard is confused). I think that leads to *us* being confused about
+what is a property of a view or a property of a type.
 
 ****************************************************************