!standard  3.3(23.4/3)                                  08-10-18  AI05-0093-1/03
!class binding interpretation 08-05-15
!status Amendment 201Z 08-11-26
!status WG9 Approved 08-10-31
!status ARG Approved  7-0-1  08-06-21
!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 are rewritten to use the term "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 (see 7.5); or
    
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.]

!corrigendum 3.3(23)
!comment A fake entry to force a conflict. The real text is in the conflict file. (includes 23.4)

@drepl
@xbullet<its type is a protected type, a task type, or an explicitly limited record type; or>
@dby
@xbullet<its type is immutably limited (see 7.5); or>

!ACATS Test

Since there is no intended semantics change, no additional ACATS tests are needed.

!appendix

From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008  2:10 PM

Steve:

I just noticed that you changed 7.5(8.1/2) in your AI: but that is already covered
in AI05-0059-1 (still open, assigned to Bob, I think). So your suggested change
conflicts with that. Should I just delete it from your homework (AI-93)?

****************************************************************

From: Stephen Baird
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008  2:35 PM

Yes, please delete it.
Good catch!

****************************************************************