CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0087-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0087-1.txt	2008/01/31 03:50:43	1.1
+++ ai05s/ai05-0087-1.txt	2008/03/07 06:15:20	1.2
@@ -1,18 +1,19 @@
-!standard 12.5.1(5.1/2)                                          08-01-30    AI05-0087-1/01
+!standard 12.5.1(5.1/2)                                          08-02-22    AI05-0087-1/02
 !standard 7.5(5/2)
 !class binding interpretation 08-01-30
+!status ARG Approved  8-0-1  08-02-10
 !status work item 08-01-30
 !status received 08-01-23
 !priority Low
 !difficulty Medium
 !qualifier Omission
-!subject Formal non-limited derived types should not have limited actual types
+!subject Formal nonlimited derived types should not have limited actual types
 
 !summary
 
-Formal non-limited derived types should not have limited actual types.
+Formal nonlimited derived types should not have limited actual types.
 
-A class-wide type is limited if it's specific type is limited.
+A class-wide type is limited if its specific type is limited.
 
 !question
 
@@ -39,7 +40,7 @@
             null;
         end Tsk;
 
-        type Has_Task is new Ifc with
+        type Has_Task is limited new Ifc with
             record
                 F : Tsk;
             end record;
@@ -49,21 +50,21 @@
         Store (X, Y);
     end;
 
-Should the instantiation be rejected? (Yes.)
+Is the instantiation legal? (No.)
 
-7.5(3-7) seems to imply that most class-wide types are non-limited, even if
+7.5(3-7) seems to imply that most class-wide types are nonlimited, even if
 the specific type is limited. That is a change from Ada 95; was this
 intended? (No.)
 
 !recommendation
 
-(See Summary.)
+(See summary.)
 
 !wording
 
 Replace the deleted paragraph 7.5(5/2) with:
 
-* a class-wide type whose associated specific type is limited;
+* a class-wide type whose specific type is limited;
 
 Change 12.5.1(5.1/2) as follows:
 
@@ -75,29 +76,29 @@
   formal derived type, the actual type shall be a
   synchronized tagged type.
 
-  AARM Ramification:
-  A type derived from a limited interface could be non-limited; we
+  AARM Discussion:
+  A type derived from a limited interface could be nonlimited; we
   do not want a limited type derived from such an interface to match
-  a non-limited formal derived type. (Otherwise, we could assign limited
+  a nonlimited formal derived type. (Otherwise, we could assign limited
   objects.)
 
 !discussion
 
 There was no intent that the class-wide type associated with a limited specific
-type to be non-limited; that would open up ways to assign tasks and the like.
+type be nonlimited; that would open up ways to assign tasks and the like.
 So we add explicit wording clarifying that class-wide types are limited if their
 specific type is.
 
-We certainly don't want the example in the question be to be legal, so we
+We certainly don't want the example in the question to be legal, so we
 must add wording to prevent it.
 
-!corrigendum 7.5(5/2)
+!corrigendum 7.5(4/2)
 
 @dinsa
 @xbullet<a type with the reserved word @b<limited>, @b<synchronized>, @b<task>,
 or @b<protected> in its definition;
 @dinst
-@xbullet<a class-wide type whose associated specific type is limited;>
+@xbullet<a class-wide type whose specific type is limited;>
 
 !corrigendum 12.5.1(5.1/2)