CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0052-1.txt
--- ai05s/ai05-0052-1.txt 2008/03/07 06:15:19 1.6
+++ ai05s/ai05-0052-1.txt 2008/05/10 05:14:33 1.7
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-!standard 4.8(5.3/2) 08-02-24 AI05-0052-1/05
+!standard 4.8(5.3/2) 08-04-09 AI05-0052-1/06
!class binding interpretation 07-05-15
!status ARG Approved 7-0-1 08-02-09
!status work item 07-05-15
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
This expense is incurred even if the program never allocates any
-Was this intended?
+Was this intended? (No.)
Second, in an apparently unrelated topic:
@@ -75,7 +75,8 @@
With the current wording of the Standard, it appears that the instance
would be illegal if X were in the visible part of Gen_Pack; but with X
in the private part, the program is legal but will raise an exception
-at runtime. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this difference.
+at runtime. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this difference,
+is it intentional? (No.)
@@ -111,7 +112,7 @@
normally apply (see 12.3), these rules apply also in the private part
of an instance of a generic unit.}
-Add after 7.5 (8/2):
+Add after 7.5 (8):
A type is *immutably limited* if it is one of the following:
@@ -135,7 +136,7 @@
have defaults or designate other limited objects.
AARM Ramification: A limited interface is not immutably limited; a type derived
-from it can be non-limited.
+from it can be nonlimited.
@@ -228,7 +229,15 @@
and the type with the discriminant is not known to be limited (usually a limited
private type.) Coextension use is rare enough that this is not that important.
+As part of this rule, we have defined the term "immutably limited". We noticed
+at a recent meeting that we had a number of rules related to types that are
+always limited in any view, that these rules were complicated (and wrong in a
+number of instances), and thus it was determined that defining a term to
+increase the commonality of those rules was a good idea. "Immutably" was chosen
+after an intermably long discussion as the best choice of literally dozens that
For the second question, we note that would need to check the new rule in the
private part of an instance, and 4.8(5.3/2) already has such a rule.
@@ -242,7 +251,7 @@
So, we factor out the "applies in the private part of an instance" wording into
-a separate pargraph that applies to all of the legality rules of 4.8.
+a separate paragraph that applies to all of the legality rules of 4.8.
@@ -273,7 +282,7 @@
of an instance of a generic unit.
There are no predefined equality operators for a limited type.
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent