CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0113-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0113-1.txt	2009/12/29 06:42:28	1.4
+++ ai05s/ai05-0113-1.txt	2010/04/02 19:28:32	1.5
@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
-!standard 3.9(12.1/2)                                         09-12-28  AI05-0113-1/04
+!standard 3.9(12.1/2)                                         10-04-02  AI05-0113-1/05
 !standard 3.9(26.1/2)
 !standard 13.3(76)
 !class binding interpretation 08-10-06
+!status ARG Approved  6-0-3  10-02-27
 !status work item 08-10-06
 !status received 08-06-13
 !priority Low
@@ -35,15 +36,6 @@
 
 !wording
 
-
-AARM Note: Rules for specifying external tags will usually prevent an external tag
-from identifying more than one type. However, this can happen if a tagged type
-is declared with a specified tag within a subprogram that is called by multiple tasks,
-or if a generic body contains a declaration of a tagged type and there are multiple
-instances. (There is an exception to the general requirement that default external tags
-be unique for this case.)
-
-
 Modify 3.9(12.1/2):
 
 The function Descendant_Tag returns the (internal) tag for the type that corresponds
@@ -60,11 +52,6 @@
 are multiple instances at the same accessibility level as the type. (There is an
 exception to the general requirement that default external tags be unique for this case.)
 
-[Editor's note: I changed the exception for multiple type to Tag_Error as it is more
-consistent and will require fewer special mechanisms that way. OTOH, Program_Error
-would identify this particular problem more clearly. Also note that Internal_Tag
-was already defined to return "a tag", so we don't need any rule for that case.]
-
 Modify 3.9(26.1/2) as follows:
 
 Internal_Tag should return the tag of a type{, if one exists,} whose innermost
@@ -133,7 +120,7 @@
 that case, as well. Internal_Tag does not need a rule, as it is defined to
 return "*a* tag" (that was intended to cover recursion, but it works here,
 too).  But we do need a rule for Dependent_Tag. We made it raise Tag_Error
-in that case to use the same exception as does other problems.
+in that case to use the same exception as it does other problems.
 
 For (2), we change the wording to "a master". The original intent was that
 master of the innermost task was "the" master, but that seems wrong (it would