!standard 3.3(21) 08-11-18 AI05-0120-1/02 !standard 9.5.2(2) !class binding interpretation 08-10-17 !status Amendment 201Z 08-11-26 !status ARG Approved 8-0-1 08-10-31 !status work item 08-10-17 !status received 08-08-06 !priority Low !difficulty Easy !qualifier Omission !subject The current instance of a protected object is a constant view !summary The current instance of a protected object is a constant (view) within the body of a protected function. !question 9.5.1(2) says, "Within the body of a protected function (or a function declared immediately within a protected_body), the current instance of the enclosing protected unit is defined to be a constant". 3.3(15) says, "The following (and no others) represent constants:" The current instance of the enclosing protected unit doesn't appear in the subsequent list. Should it be added? (Yes.) !recommendation (See Summary.) !wording Add after 3.3(21): * Within the body of a protected function (or a function declared immediately within a protected_body), the current instance of the enclosing protected unit; !discussion Since the list in 3.3 is supposed to represent all constants, it is wrong for this case to be left off of the list. !corrigendum 3.3(21) @dinsa @xbullet or an @fa; @dinst @xbullet), the current instance of the enclosing protected unit;> !ACATS Test The rule is tested in 9.5.1; this is just a redundant wording to be consistent, so no new tests are needed. !appendix !topic Contradictory rules? !reference 3.3(15-22), 9.5.1(2) !from Adam Beneschan 08-08-06 !discussion 9.5.1(2) says, "Within the body of a protected function (or a function declared immediately within a protected_body), the current instance of the enclosing protected unit is defined to be a constant". 3.3(15) says, "The following (and no others) represent constants:" The current instance of the enclosing protected unit doesn't appear in the subsequent list. Is this a contradiction? **************************************************************** From: Edmond Schonberg Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2008 8:19 PM Let's call it an omission... The list in 3.3(15) should have one more entry. Maybe the wording in both cases should say "denote" rather than "represent" and "defined to be" ? ****************************************************************