CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0158-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0158-1.txt	2010/11/18 07:07:35	1.11
+++ ai05s/ai05-0158-1.txt	2010/12/15 00:10:58	1.12
@@ -1,4 +1,6 @@
-!standard 3.8.1(5)                                 10-11-12    AI05-0158-1/06
+!standard 3.8.1(5)                                 10-11-19    AI05-0158-1/07
+!standard 4.4(1)
+!standard 4.4(2)
 !standard 4.4(3)
 !standard 4.5.2(3)
 !standard 4.5.2(4)
@@ -55,14 +57,32 @@
 
   discrete_Choice ::= choice_expression | discrete_Range | others
 
+Add categories choice_expression and choice_relation to the text
+of 4.4(1/3) as modified by AI05-0147-1.
+
+[Editor's note: quantified_expression also ought to be added to this list,
+see AI05-0176-1.]
+
+Add after 4.4(2):
+
+     choice_expression := choice_relation {and choice_relation}
+       | choice_relation {or choice_relation}
+       | choice_relation {xor choice_relation}
+       | choice_relation {and then choice_relation}
+       | choice_relation {or else choice_relation}
+
+     choice_relation ::=
+         simple_expression [relational_operator simple_expression]
+
 Replace 4.4(3):
 
      relation ::=
-        simple_expression [relational_operator simple_expression] |
-        simple_expression [not] in membership_choice_list
+         simple_expression [relational_operator simple_expression]
+       | simple_expression [not] in membership_choice_list
+
      membership_choice_list ::= membership_choice {'|' membership_choice}
      membership_choice ::= choice_expression | range | subtype_mark
-     choice_expression ::= simple_expression
+
 
 Replace 4.5.2(3): (Name Resolution Rules)
 
@@ -683,7 +703,9 @@
     choice_expression ::=
       choice_relation ...
 
-also, rather than using simply "choice_list" and "choice" how about "membership_choice_list" and "membership_choice" to distinguish it from the other kinds of choices?  Hence:
+also, rather than using simply "choice_list" and "choice" how about
+"membership_choice_list" and "membership_choice" to distinguish it from the other
+kinds of choices?  Hence:
 
      choice_expression ::=
        choice_relation {logical_operator choice_relation}
@@ -1922,3 +1944,18 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+Summary of phone meeting, November 19, 2010
+
+Randy suggested fixing the grammar to minimize the incompatibility.
+
+Robert wonders if the grammar change is worth it to minimize this incompatibility.
+Randy notes that while an incompatibility in practice is not likely, examples
+involving modular types are plausible. Since we have a workable (although
+a bit redundant looking) solution to eliminate the incompatibility for modular
+types, it seems wrong to insist on having the incompatibility. Robert agrees
+with that argument and withdraws his question.
+
+The grammar change is OK. It will be treated as an editorial fix (this AI was
+previously approved).
+
+****************************************************************