!standard 3.3(23.4/3) 08-05-15 AI05-0093-1/01 !standard 7.5(8.7/2) !class binding interpretation 08-05-15 !status work item 08-05-15 !status received 06-05-13 !priority Low !difficulty Medium !qualifier Omission !subject Additional rules that need to use "immutably limited" !summary Additional rules should use "immutably limited". !question Now that AI05-0052 has defined the term "immutably limited", are there other places in the RM where that term should be used? (yes.) !wording In 3.3(23.4/3) (in the definition of "known to be constrained", text added by AI05-0008-1), replace its type is a protected type, a task type, or an explicitly limited record type; or with its type is immutably limited; or In 7.5(8.7/2), replace For a function_call of a type with a part that is of a task, protected, or explicitly limited record type that is used to initialize an object as allowed above, the implementation shall not create a separate return object (see 6.5) for the function_call. with For a function_call of an immutably limited type that is used to initialize an object as allowed above, the implementation shall not create a separate return object (see 6.5) for the function_call. In AARM 12.3(11.p/2), replace A type with a default_expression of an access discriminant has to be a descendant of an explicitly limited record type a type declared with limited, or be a task or protected type. with A type with a default_expression of an access discriminant has to be immutably limited. !discussion This is semantics-preserving cleanup. These changes are not intended to have any impact on implementations. Should AARM 10.2.1(28.e/2) be changed to use the term "immutably limited"? [No. The note should say something about a component that doesn't have available stream attributes, that is not clear; otherwise, it is specifically enumerating Ada 95 cases that would fail. - Editor.] Following the example of 3.10(9/3), we do not say "(see 7.5)" when the term "immutably limited" is used in sections which precede its definition in 7.5. --!corrigendum 3.4(23.4/3) !ACATS Test Since there is no intended semantics change, no additional ACATS tests are needed. !appendix ****************************************************************