CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0053-1.txt
--- ai05s/ai05-0053-1.txt 2008/05/22 05:23:58 1.6
+++ ai05s/ai05-0053-1.txt 2008/05/29 04:36:46 1.7
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.10(9/2) 08-05-21 AI05-0053-1/06
+!standard 3.10(9/2) 08-05-27 AI05-0053-1/06
!standard 6.5(2.1/2)
!class binding interpretation 07-05-15
!status work item 08-05-21
@@ -154,10 +154,10 @@
privacy-breaking. This was not an issue in the case of
the current instance of a type because the current instance of
a type can only be named in a context where the completion of the
-type is visible. With extended return statements, we we don't want
+type is visible. With extended return statements, we don't want
to look through private types to see if the completion "has the
reserved word *limited*". The rule is therefore expressed in terms
-of "an explicitly limited record type" instead.
+of "an immutably limited record type" instead.
We could have instead explicitly stated the Unchecked_Access
"clarification" described above and added a runtime check which
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent