CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0179-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0179-1.txt	2010/02/04 23:33:59	1.4
+++ ai05s/ai05-0179-1.txt	2010/04/05 23:08:15	1.5
@@ -1,5 +1,7 @@
-!standard 5.1(2)                                  10-02-04  AI05-0179-1/03
+!standard 5.1(2)                                  10-04-05  AI05-0179-1/04
 !class Amendment 09-10-29
+!status Amendment 2012 10-04-05
+!status ARG Approved  10-0-0  10-02-26
 !status work item 09-10-29
 !status received 09-10-29
 !status received
@@ -66,25 +68,25 @@
 than required for such a simple change to the language.
 
 We retain the requirement that a sequence of statements include at least
-one statement (a label all by itself is still not allowed). So
+one statement (a label all by itself is still not allowed). So the following
+is allowed by this proposal:
 
    if A then
-      <<Lab>> -- Illegal
+      null; <<Lab>>
    end if;
 
-but
+But the following is still illegal:
 
    if A then
-      <<Lab>> null;
+      <<Lab>> -- Illegal
    end if;
 
-and
+And the following is still legal (of course):
 
    if A then
-      null; <<Lab>>
+      <<Lab>> null;
    end if;
 
-are allowed.
 
 !example
 
@@ -95,8 +97,26 @@
       <<Continue>>
    end loop;
 
---!corrigendum 5.1(2)
+!corrigendum 5.1(2)
 
+@drepl
+@xcode<sequence_of_statements ::= statement {statement}>
+@dby
+@xcode<sequence_of_statements ::= statement {statement} {label}>
+
+!corrigendum 5.1(12)
+
+@dinsa
+For each @fa<statement_identifier>, there is an implicit declaration (with the
+specified @fa<identifier>) at the end of the @fa<declarative_part> of the innermost
+@fa<block_statement> or body that encloses the @fa<statement_identifier>. The implicit
+declarations occur in the same order as the @fa<statement_identifier>s occur in the source
+text. If a usage name denotes such an implicit declaration, the entity it denotes is the
+@fa<label>, @fa<loop_statement>, or @fa<block_statement> with the given
+@fa<statement_identifier>. 
+@dinst
+If one or more @fa<label>s end a @fa<sequence_of_statements>, an implicit @fa<null_statement>
+follows the @fa<label>s before any following constructs.
 
 !ACATS test
 
@@ -191,5 +211,32 @@
 522/1,041,737 = 0.0005
 
 118/522 = 0.23
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Friday, Fberuary 26, 2010  2:49 PM
+
+Proposed change in end of the discussion:
+
+We retain the requirement that a sequence of statements include at least one
+statement (a label all by itself is still not allowed). So the following is
+allowed by this proposal:
+
+   if A then
+      null; <<Lab>>
+   end if;
+
+As before, the following is still illegal:
+
+   if A then
+      <<Lab>> -- Illegal
+   end if;
+
+And the following is still legal:
+
+   if A then
+      <<Lab>> null;
+   end if;
 
 ****************************************************************