CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0148-1.txt

Differences between 1.9 and version 1.10
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0148-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0148-1.txt	2011/04/26 22:18:27	1.9
+++ ai05s/ai05-0148-1.txt	2011/08/17 00:24:12	1.10
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@
    For these cases, it is important to note that the "correct" static
    accessibility level for an access parameter assigned to a stand-alone
-   access parameter is the minimum of the passed in level and the static
+   access object is the minimum of the passed in level and the static
    accessibility level of the stand-alone object itself. This is true since
    the static accessibility level passed in might be deeper than that of the
    stand-alone object, but the dynamic accessibility of the passed in object
@@ -1082,6 +1082,38 @@
 That is, I added "such" to the second added sentence so we don't have to
 repeat all of the anonymous stuff. I did that for both paragraphs.
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Tuesday, July  5, 2011  3:36 PM
+I think AI05-0148 should have included an update of
+   This check requires that some indication of lifetime is passed
+   as an implicit parameter along with access parameters of an
+   access-to-object type. No such requirement applies to other anonymous
+   access types, since the checks associated with them are all
+   compile-time checks.
+This is no longer true for a saooaaat, right?
+[Note: it was pointed out to me (by you?) that "saooaaat" really should be
+"saooaaatot" - stand-alone object of an anonymous access-to-object type - but
+you know what I mean]
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, July  5, 2011  6:02 PM
+It wasn't me that pointed out that "saooaaat" isn't right. Also, most acronyms
+leave out words like "of" "an" and "to", so I think it should be "saoaaot", not
+that that helps much. :-)
+Anyway, I added an additional sentence into this note. "A similar indication is
+required for stand-alone objects of anonymous access-to-object types."

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent