CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0155-1.txt
--- ai05s/ai05-0155-1.txt 2010/06/14 01:24:50 1.4
+++ ai05s/ai05-0155-1.txt 2010/08/13 02:45:15 1.5
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
-!standard 13.1(23) 10-06-10 AI05-0155-1/03
+!standard 13.1(23) 10-08-12 AI05-0155-1/04
!class ramification 10-06-09
+!status ARG Approved 9-0-1 10-06-19
!status work item 09-06-01
!status received 09-04-07
@@ -38,7 +40,7 @@
Is the 'Size clause legal, requiring a check at runtime to make sure
there's enough space given the actual values of Low and High; or is it
-illegal? (It is illegal.)
+illegal? (It is probably illegal.)
@@ -46,7 +48,7 @@
-Add after 13.3(56.2):
+Add after 13.3(56.2/2):
@@ -65,13 +67,13 @@
recommended level of support.
That means, for instance, that supporting specifying of 'Size for
-discrete and fixed point types wuth dynamic constraints is required
+discrete and fixed point types with dynamic constraints is required
so long as the value is large enough to allow "any value of the subtype".
There seems to be five possible solutions to this problem:
(1) Allow any reasonable value for 'Size, and require a runtime check
-that it fit based on the actual bounds. (similarly for record representation
+that it fits based on the actual bounds. (similarly for record representation
component clauses.). This is clearly the most flexible solution, but it adds
runtime overhead and surely would need wording to define the needed check.
@@ -144,8 +146,10 @@
than the minimum Size, and we would still want to allow that.
Trying to specify a smaller size would not be portable.
+We chose this last option; we do not believe that any normative wording
+changes are needed for this interpretation. We leave exactly what is
+required to support "any value of the subtype" up to the implementation,
+but clearly values larger than the size chosen by default must qualify.
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent