CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0092-1.txt

Differences between 1.12 and version 1.13
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0092-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0092-1.txt	2010/10/16 04:36:19	1.12
+++ ai05s/ai05-0092-1.txt	2010/10/21 03:41:30	1.13
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
-!standard  3.3.1(20.4/2)                             10-10-15  AI05-0092-1/11
+!standard  3.3.1(20.4/2)                             10-10-20  AI05-0092-1/12
 !standard  3.3.1(23)
 !standard  3.9(25.1/2)
 !standard  6.3.1(21.1/2)
+!standard  7.6(9.3/2)
 !standard  9.6(22)
 !standard 13.3(75/1)
 !standard 13.13.2(55/2)
@@ -65,8 +66,10 @@
 
 15) Correct A.16(104/2) and A.16(112/2).
 
-16) Changed "List" to "Vector" in A.18.2(189/2).
+16) Change "List" to "Vector" in A.18.2(189/2).
 
+17) Replace "that with "whose type" in 7.6(9.3/2)
+
 !question
 
 1) Generally, "must" shall not be used in normative rules of the standard. However,
@@ -116,6 +119,11 @@
 16) A.18.2(189/2) has a parameter type of "List"; but this is the vector package.
 Should this be fixed? (Yes.)
 
+17) 7.6(9.1-9.6/2) define "needs finalization" on types. But 7.6(9.3/2) talks about
+components: these are objects not types. This needs to say something about
+"a component whose type needs finalization". Should this be fixed? (Yes.)
+
+
 [Other questions here.]
 
 !recommendation
@@ -172,6 +180,8 @@
 
 16) Replace "List" with "Vector" in A.18.2(189/2).
 
+17) Replace "that" with "whose type" in 7.6(9.3/2).
+
 !discussion
 
 1) 3.3.1(20.4/2) uses "must precede", while 3.3.1(20.1-3/2) use "is preceded by".
@@ -229,6 +239,9 @@
 16) There is nothing named "List" in this package, so this must be a simple
 cut-and-paste error.
 
+17) The questioner is right; we need to say something about the type of the
+component.
+
 !corrigendum 3.3.1(20.4/2)
 
 @drepl
@@ -288,6 +301,13 @@
 @xbullet<each @fa<attribute_designator> in one is the same as the
 corresponding @fa<attribute_designator> in the other; and>
 
+!corrigendum 7.6(9.3/2)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<it has a component that needs finalization; or>
+@dby
+@xbullet<it has a component whose type needs finalization; or>
+
 !corrigendum 9.6(22)
 
 @drepl
@@ -1161,6 +1181,20 @@
 given that there is no chance of confusion (if it meant the null access value "null"
 would have been in boldface), making a change here is about the lowest priority fix I
 could imagine.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+!topic Small error in "needs finalization" definition
+!reference 7.6(9.3)
+!from Adam Beneschan 10-03-24
+!discussion
+
+This is a slight nitpick, but...  the definition of "need[s]
+finalization" in 7.6 says "A type is said to need finalization if
+... it has a component that needs finalization".  Since a component is
+an object, not a type, and the "needs finalization" term is defined
+for types but not objects, that should probably read "it has a
+component whose type needs finalization".
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent