CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0150-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0150-1.txt	2010/01/30 05:03:20	1.4
+++ ai05s/ai05-0150-1.txt	2010/02/23 07:31:06	1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard  8.4(4)                                 10-01-29    AI05-0150-1/02
+!standard  8.4(4)                                 10-02-04    AI05-0150-1/03
 !standard  8.4(8/2)
 !class Amendment 09-04-22
 !status work item 09-04-22
@@ -35,15 +35,26 @@
 
 Add to the end of 8.4(8/2):
 
+    If a use_type_clause whose scope encloses a place includes the reserved
+    word "all", then the following are also potentially use-visible at this
+    place if its declaration is visible at this place:
+      - Each primitive subprogram of T Redundant[including each enumeration
+        literal (if any)];
+      - Each subprogram that is declared immediately within the declarative
+        region in which an ancestor type of T is declared and that operates
+        on a class-wide type that covers T.
+
+[Editor's note: Steve suggested using "in the same way" avoid having to repeat
+the three "place" definition. Thus:
+
     If a use_type_clause includes the reserved word "all", then the
-    following additional declarations are also made potentially
-    use-visible in the same way as is done for the primitive operators of T:
+    following are also made potentially use-visible in the same way
+    as the primitive operators of T:
 
-      - The visible primitive subprograms of T Redundant[including any
-        enumeration literals];
-      - Any visible subprograms that are declared immediately within
-        the declarative region in which an ancestor type of T is
-        declared and that operation on a class-wide type that covers T.
+I started wondering exactly what "in the same way" meant, and realized that
+writing it out was not significantly longer. So I erred on the side of
+clarity (vs. redundancy, the previous sentence of the paragraph is very
+similar to the new one). - RLB]
 
 !discussion
 
@@ -54,7 +65,7 @@
 makes constructor functions directly visible.
 
 
-The use of package use clause introduces a maintenance hazard into a program.
+The use of a package use clause introduces a maintenance hazard into a program.
 Adding a new non-overloadable entity (like an object or subtype) to a package P
 can make unrelated code that happens to "use" P illegal. That can happen
 because the non-overloadable entity will "cancel" any other uses of the same