CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0096-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0096-1.txt	2008/07/12 01:18:27	1.3
+++ ai05s/ai05-0096-1.txt	2008/10/25 04:53:14	1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.4(5.1/2)                                     08-07-11  AI05-0096-1/03
+!standard 3.4(5.1/2)                                     08-10-18  AI05-0096-1/04
 !standard 6.2(7)
 !class binding interpretation 08-05-23
 !status ARG Approved  7-0-1  08-06-22
@@ -11,8 +11,9 @@
 
 !summary
 
-An instance of a generic is illegal if a limited type extension is derived from
-a formal tagged limited private type and the actual type is nonlimited.
+An instance of a generic unit is illegal if a limited type extension is
+derived from a formal tagged limited private type and the actual type
+is nonlimited.
 
 Derivation does not change the by-reference or by-copy status of a type.
 
@@ -49,7 +50,7 @@
 (See the previous paragraph's annotations for an explanation of this.) However,
 if the parent type is a tagged limited formal type with an actual type that is
 nonlimited, it would be possible to pass a value of the limited type extension
-to a classwide type of the parent, which would be nonlimited. That's too weird
+to a class-wide type of the parent, which would be nonlimited. That's too weird
 to allow (even though all of the extension components would have to be
 nonlimited because the rules of 3.9.1 are rechecked), so we have a special rule
 to prevent that in the private part (type extension from a formal type is illegal
@@ -67,7 +68,7 @@
 
 As explained by AARM 3.4(5.b-f/2), 3.4(5/2) is one of the (very few) rules
 where we *intentionally* don't recheck the rule in the private part. Specifically,
-a similar example to that in the question:
+consider a similar example to that in the question:
 
    generic
        type Lim is limited private;
@@ -152,7 +153,7 @@
 Prim should pass Param by-reference. But the parent routine is by-copy, and
 it isn't possible to have the effect of pass-by-reference for Param. (Even a
 wrapper would have to copy Param; the only way to do it would be to duplicate
-the body of Prim, which is clear insanity.)
+the body of Prim, which is clearly insanity.)
 
 It's clear that this definition was not updated when limited derived types were
 introduced late in the Amendment process. An investigation of the standard shows