CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0100-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0100-1.txt	2008/10/24 00:37:08	1.2
+++ ai05s/ai05-0100-1.txt	2008/12/02 06:01:19	1.3
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
-!standard  2.8(6)                                  08-10-23  AI05-0100-1/02
+!standard  2.8(6)                                  08-11-19  AI05-0100-1/03
 !standard  2.8(7)
 !class binding interpretation 08-05-28
+!status Amendment 201Z 08-11-26
+!status ARG Approved  8-0-1  08-10-31
 !status work item 08-05-28
 !status received 06-04-15
 !priority Low
@@ -10,7 +12,8 @@
 
 !summary
 
-Pragmas are allowed as the only item in a list if that list is allowed to be empty.
+For lists that allow pragmas, if the list may have no elements, then the list may
+consist solely of pragmas.
 
 !question
 
@@ -60,7 +63,7 @@
 come at the place of a basic_declarative_item). This is disturbing because
 it would mean the definition of the package Ada in A.2 is illegal!
 
-What is the intent of this wording? (Beats me.)
+What is the intent of this wording?
 
 !wording
 
@@ -69,8 +72,8 @@
   AARM NOTE: Language Design Principle
     In general, if all pragmas are erased from a program, the program should
     remain both syntactically and semantically legal. There are a few exceptions
-    to this general principle (e.g. pragma Import can eliminate the need for
-    a completion), but the principle remains, and is strictly true at the
+    to this general principle (for example, pragma Import can eliminate the need
+    for a completion), but the principle remains, and is strictly true at the
     syntactic level. Certainly any implementation-defined pragmas should
     obey this principle both syntactically and semantically, so that if
     the pragmas are simply ignored by some other implementation, the program
@@ -89,9 +92,10 @@
       categories variant or exception_handler; but not in place of
       such a construct {if the construct is required, or is
       part of a list that is required to have at least one such 
-      construct [Redundant:, as in a sequence_of_statements]}. 
-      Also at any place where a compilation_unit would be allowed.
+      construct [Redundant:, as in a sequence_of_statements]}.
 
+    * At any place where a compilation_unit would be allowed.
+
 !discussion
 
 We have added an explicit language design principle to establish the
@@ -105,12 +109,30 @@
 of confusion.  We have qualified the phrase a bit by making it clear it
 applies when the construct is required or is part of a list that must have
 at least one element.  Hopefully this will remove some of the mystery.
+
+!corrigendum 2.8(7)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<At any place where the syntax rules allow a construct defined by a
+syntactic category whose name ends with "@fa<declaration>", "@fa<statement>",
+"@fa<clause>", or "@fa<alternative>", or one of the syntactic categories
+@fa<variant> or @fa<exception_handler>;
+but not in place of such a construct.
+Also at any place where a @fa<compilation_unit> would be allowed.>
+@dby
+@xbullet<At any place where the syntax rules allow a construct defined by a
+syntactic category whose name ends with "@fa<declaration>", "@fa<item>",
+"@fa<statement>", "@fa<clause>", or "@fa<alternative>", or one of the
+syntactic categories @fa<variant> or @fa<exception_handler>;
+but not in place of such a construct if the construct is required, or is
+part of a list that is required to have at least one such 
+construct, as in a @fa<sequence_of_statements>.>
 
---!corrigendum 2.8(7)
+@xbullet<At any place where a @fa<compilation_unit> would be allowed.>
 
 !ACATS Test
 
-ACATS B-Test should be constructed to ensure that pragmas are not allowed in
+ACATS B-Test(s) should be constructed to ensure that pragmas are not allowed in
 illegal places. (This is a syntax rule, but since it is given by text rather
 than semantic rules, and there is little use of pragmas in the ACATS, extra
 testing is needed.)