CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0131-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0131-1.txt	2011/02/05 06:31:34	1.2
+++ ai05s/ai05-0131-1.txt	2011/02/08 08:21:05	1.3
@@ -696,4 +696,60 @@
    thus it does not need to construct implicit declarations for those
    primitives.
 
-****************************************************************
\ No newline at end of file
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Date: Monday, February  7, 2011  11:29 AM
+
+> Having thought about this some more, it seems wrong to mention the 
+> defining name in any case.
+
+I agree - the changes you've made look good to me.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Date: Monday, February  7, 2011  11:46 AM
+
+Why does this restrict itself to primitive subprograms of T that "have at
+least one controlling formal parameter"? This may have been explained
+elsewhere, but I must have missed it.  Why aren't all primitives of T
+made use-visible with the given "T => T'Class" substitution, even if they
+only have controlling results?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Date: Monday, February  7, 2011  12:05 PM
+
+From my previous e-mail:
+
+> Note that this proposal follows AI05-0071 in building implicit 
+> declarations only for primitive subprograms which have at least one 
+> controlling formal parameter (as opposed to only a controlling 
+> result), AI05-0071 got this part right - building on 12.5.1(23.3/2)'s 
+> weirdness seems like a bad idea. With at least one controlling 
+> operand, we have a nice clean wrapper model. When we only have a 
+> controlling result, things get messy.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Date: Monday, February  7, 2011  12:09 PM
+
+Steve explained it in the !discussion of the AI.
+
+Since such routines are defined to raise Program_Error in many circumstances,
+it seems unhelpful to allow it, and a lot of extra work as well.
+
+In any case, this was carried over from the wording of AI05-0071-1, which
+we didn't intend to change.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Date: Monday, February  7, 2011  12:18 PM
+
+Thanks.  I had missed the significance of this originally.
+
+****************************************************************