CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0129-1.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0129-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0129-1.txt	2008/12/05 05:33:20	1.3
+++ ai05s/ai05-0129-1.txt	2009/01/17 05:13:00	1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-!standard 10.1.1(12.3/2)                                           08-11-23  AI05-0129-1/01
+!standard 10.1.1(12.2/2)                                           09-01-16  AI05-0129-1/02
+!standard 10.1.1(12.3/2)
 !class binding interpretation 08-11-23
 !status work item 08-11-23
 !status received 08-11-23
@@ -12,6 +13,8 @@
 A limited view of a package does not contain incomplete views of incomplete
 types declared in the package.
 
+Private parts of limited views of packages are empty.
+
 !question
 
 A question raised by discussion of the ASIS semantic subsystem at the
@@ -33,8 +36,14 @@
 3.2.1(2), so 10.1.1(12.3/2) says that an incomplete view is defined for
 both declarations. The language does not provide a way to chose between
 them, indeed, they would appear to be illegal homographs.
+
+What is the intent here? (No limited view is declared of (1)).
 
-What is the intent here?
+Another problem noted by the Portland meeting is that the wording of
+10.1.1(12.2/2) does not exclude nested packages declared in the private part
+of the enclosing package. Types declared in the private part are excluded
+by 10.1.1(12.3/2), so it appears that this is intentional. Is this the
+intent? (No.)
 
 !recommendation
 
@@ -42,11 +51,16 @@
 
 !wording
 
+Modify 10.1.1(12.2/2),
+
+* For each nested package_declaration{ in the visible part}, a declaration of the 
+ limited view of that package, with the same defining_program_unit_name.
+
 Modify 10.1.1(12.3/3):
 
-For each type_declaration {that is not an incomplete_type_declaration} in the
-visible part, an incomplete view of the type; if the type_declaration
-is tagged, then the view is a tagged incomplete view.
+* For each type_declaration {that is not an incomplete_type_declaration} in the
+  visible part, an incomplete view of the type; if the type_declaration
+  is tagged, then the view is a tagged incomplete view.
 
 !discussion
 
@@ -67,6 +81,20 @@
 So we adjust the wording to eliminate the declaration of incomplete views
 of incomplete types in a limited view.
 
+For the second question, it would make no sense to include nested packages in
+the private part in the limited view, but not the associated types. We adjust
+the wording to make these consistent.
+
+!corrigendum 10.1.1(12.2/2)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<For each nested @fa<package_declaration>, a declaration of the
+limited view of that package, with the same @fa<defining_program_unit_name>.>
+@dby
+@xbullet<For each nested @fa<package_declaration> in the visible part, a
+declaration of the limited view of that package, with the same
+@fa<defining_program_unit_name>.>
+
 !corrigendum 10.1.1(12.3/2)
 
 @drepl
@@ -85,4 +113,68 @@
 
 !appendix
 
+From: Steve Baird
+Date: Monday, January 5, 2009  5:50 PM
+
+
+This new AI is part of my homework from the Portland meeting.
+
+------------
+
+!subject private parts of limited views
+
+!summary
+
+Private parts of limited views of packages are empty.
+
+!problem
+
+The wording of 10.1.1(12.2/2) fails to exclude nested packages declared in the
+private part of the enclosing package. This case is handled correctly for types
+in 10.1.1(12.3/3).
+
+There also appears to be a missing space in 12.3/3 ("typewith" should be two words).
+
+!proposal
+
+In 12.2/2, echo the (correct) wording of 12.3/3.
+In 12.3/3, fix the typo.
+
+!wording
+
+In 10.1.1(12.2/2),
+
+    "For each nested package_declaration [in the visible part], ..."
+
+In 12.3/3 "typewith" => "type with".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Date: Monday, January 5, 2009  8:12 PM
+
+I think this AI should be combined with AI05-0129-1, which was some of my
+homework from Portland. They're both about bugs in the definition of limited
+views. The fixes are in adjoining sentences. Any objections??
+
+> ------------
+...
+
+> There also appears to be a missing space in 12.3/3 ("typewith" should 
+> be two words).
+
+For some reason, this doesn't show up in the AARM (which is why I didn't see it).
+"discriminant_part" is also in the wrong font. I've fixed both for the next version.
+(This doesn't need to be in an AI, as it is merely an editorial glitch.)
+
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2009  9:45 AM
+
+> Any objections??
+
+No.
+
+****************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent