CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0163-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0163-1.txt	2010/07/08 03:07:45	1.5
+++ ai05s/ai05-0163-1.txt	2010/10/08 03:24:53	1.6
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
-!standard  2.8(7)                                  10-07-07  AI05-0163-1/02
+!standard  2.8(7)                                  10-10-07  AI05-0163-1/03
 !standard  2.8(16)
 !class binding interpretation 09-10-16
-!status Amendment 201Z 10-07-07
+!status Amendment 2012 10-07-07
 !status ARG Approved  8-0-1  10-07-07
 !status work item 09-10-16
 !status received 09-06-28
@@ -21,7 +21,8 @@
 
 !wording
 
-2.8(5-7.1/3) is modified (deleting text in 7/3 as marked, and adding a new bullet):
+2.8(5-7.1/3) is modified (deleting text in 7/3 [updated by AI05-0100-1] as
+marked, and adding a new bullet):
 
 5     Pragmas are only allowed at the following places in a program:
 
@@ -29,8 +30,8 @@
           discriminant_part.
 
 7/3     * At any place where the syntax rules allow a construct
-          defined by a syntactic category whose name ends with "
-          declaration", "statement", "clause", or "alternative", or one of the
+          defined by a syntactic category whose name ends with "declaration",
+          "item", "statement", "clause", or "alternative", or one of the
 	  syntactic categories variant or exception_handler; but not in place of
 	  such a construct if the construct is required, or is part of a list
 	  that is required to have at least one such construct[, as in a
@@ -119,25 +120,25 @@
 run time.
 
 We considered allowing pragmas in formal_parts of procedures and the like.
-However that was considered to complicated.  For example, we're not sure how it
+However that was considered too complicated. For example, we're not sure how it
 would affect the conformance rules.
 
 Historical note:  In Ada 83, implementation-defined pragmas were forbidden to
 affect legality in either direction.  The intent in Ada 95 was to weaken this
 rule to only forbid pragmas that make an otherwise-illegal program legal, and to
-add the "Normally, ..." loophole.  We have preserved that, but rather than
+add the "Normally, ..." loophole. We have preserved that, but rather than
 requiring syntactic legality when the pragmas are removed, we simply require
-syntactic legality if the pragmas are treated as unrecognized pragmas.  That
+syntactic legality if the pragmas are treated as unrecognized pragmas. That
 is the more important goal, namely that the program remains syntactically legal
 for implementations that don't recognize an implementation-defined pragma.
 
 Note that we retain the Requirement of a warning on unrecognized pragmas.
 
 We considered rewriting the BNF syntax rules to show precisely where pragmas are
-allowed.  This would be clearer than the English-language description, which has
-already been subject to some AIs.  However, this idea was considered too
+allowed. This would be clearer than the English-language description, which has
+already been subject to some AIs. However, this idea was considered too
 difficult, and was rejected.  Some 100 BNF rules would need to be carefully
-inspected (all the ones endind in "declaration", "statement", etc), so this
+inspected (all the ones ending in "declaration", "statement", etc), so this
 change was considered too error prone.
 
 !corrigendum 2.8(7)