CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0077-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0077-1.txt	2007/12/13 04:39:38	1.3
+++ ai05s/ai05-0077-1.txt	2008/03/07 06:15:19	1.4
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
-!standard 10.1.2(22/2)                                          07-12-07    AI05-0077-1/01
+!standard 10.1.2(22/2)                                          08-02-25    AI05-0077-1/02
 !class binding interpretation 07-12-07
+!status ARG Approved  8-0-0  08-02-09
 !status work item 07-12-07
 !status received 07-12-05
 !priority Medium
@@ -34,9 +35,12 @@
 
 !wording
 
-Change 10.1.1(21/2) to:
+In 10.1.2(12/2), replace "library item" with "library_item". Do the same in
+AARM notes 10.1.2(16.b/2) and 10.1.2(31.h/2).
 
-*  within a context_clause for a library item which is within the
+Replace 10.1.2(21/2) with:
+
+*  within a context_clause for a library_item which is within the
    scope of a nonlimited_with_clause that mentions the same
    library package; or
 
@@ -44,9 +48,9 @@
 the same context_clause, as well as nonlimited_with_clauses found on
 parent units.
 
-Change 10.1.2(22/2) to:
+Replace 10.1.2(22/2) with:
 
-*  within a context_clause for a library item which is within the
+*  within a context_clause for a library_item which is within the
    scope of a use_clause that names an entity declared in the
    declarative region of the library package.
 
@@ -59,18 +63,50 @@
 any context_clause. AARM 10.1.6(6.a-6.c) discuss the reasons for this. As such,
 changing the meaning of declarative region would be a very bad idea.
 
-Instead, we focus on the library item that is associated with the context_clause.
+Instead, we focus on the library_item that is associated with the context_clause.
 If it is within the scope of an appropriate entity, then a limited_with_clause
 in the context_clause is illegal.
 
-Note that we could have said "library_unit_declaration" rather than "library item"
+Note that we could have said "library_unit_declaration" rather than "library_item"
 in the wording, as limited_with_clauses are not allowed on bodies, renamings, or
 subunits. However, this seems more specific than necessary, is wordier than
 necessary, and could present a future maintenance hazard for the Standard.
-
---!corrigendum 10.1.2(21/2)
---!corrigendum 10.1.2(22/2)
 
+During the work on this AI, we discovered that the term "library item" was used in
+this clause; but that only the syntactic term "library_item" is actually defined.
+We corrected the wording to fix that error.
+
+!corrigendum 10.1.2(12/2)
+
+@drepl
+A @fa<name> denoting a library item that is visible only due to being
+mentioned in one or more @fa<with_clause>s that include the reserved word
+@b<private> shall appear only within:
+@dby
+A @fa<name> denoting a @fa<library_item> that is visible only due to being
+mentioned in one or more @fa<with_clause>s that include the reserved word
+@b<private> shall appear only within:
+
+!corrigendum 10.1.2(21/2)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<in the same @fa<context_clause> as, or within the scope of, a
+@fa<nonlimited_with_clause> that mentions the same library package; or>
+@dby
+@xbullet<within a @fa<context_clause> for a @fa<library_item> which is
+within the scope of a @fa<nonlimited_with_clause> that mentions the same
+library package; or>
+
+!corrigendum 10.1.2(22/2)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<in the same @fa<context_clause> as, or within the scope of, a
+@fa<use_clause> that names an entity declared within the declarative region of
+the library package.>
+@dby
+@xbullet<within a @fa<context_clause> for a @fa<library_item> which is within the
+scope of a @fa<use_clause> that names an entity declared in the declarative
+region of the library package.>
 
 !ACATS Test