CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0183-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0183-1.txt	2011/04/02 07:14:42	1.25
+++ ai05s/ai05-0183-1.txt	2011/04/22 02:26:00	1.26
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.2.1(3)                                 11-04-01  AI05-0183-1/11
+!standard 3.2.1(3)                                 11-04-19  AI05-0183-1/13
 !standard 3.2.2(2)
 !standard 3.3.1(2/2)
 !standard 3.8(6)
@@ -475,11 +475,15 @@
 	entry_declaration*
 	entry_index_specification  --  NO
 	choice_parameter_specification  --  NO
-	generic_formal_parameter_declaration*
-	  -- There are no language-defined aspects that
-	  -- may be specified on generic formals, but implementations
-	  -- might support some. The implementation would have to
-	  -- define the matching rule.
+	generic_formal_parameter_declaration
+          -- There are no language-defined aspects that may be
+          -- specified on generic formals, but implementations might support some.
+          formal_object_declaration*
+          formal_type_declaration*
+          formal_subprogram_declaration
+            formal_concrete_subprogram_declaration*
+            formal_abstract_subprogram_declaration*
+          formal_package_declaration*
 	extended_return_statement  --  NO
      End of AARM Note.
 
@@ -569,8 +573,6 @@
 
     * An aspect specified on a subprogram_declaration;
 
-    * The Address aspect;
-
     * An aspect specified on a renaming_declaration.
 
   Other aspect_specifications are associated with the entity, and apply
@@ -660,8 +662,7 @@
     aspects that are defined, for example, by a subtype_indication
     rather than an expression or a name.  We chose not to try to
     enumerate all possible aspect_definition syntaxes, but to give
-    implementations maximum freedom, at least in this version of the
-    standard.
+    implementations maximum freedom.
 
 Modify 13.13.2(1/1):
 
@@ -1409,8 +1410,6 @@
 
 @xbullet<An aspect specified on a @fa<subprogram_declaration>;>
 
-@xbullet<The Address aspect;>
-
 @xbullet<An aspect specified on a @fa<renaming_declaration>.>
 
 Other @fa<aspect_specification>s are associated with the entity, and apply
@@ -6716,5 +6715,37 @@
 I defined this in this way so that I didn't need to introduce a new term and
 then find and change all of the associated uses. But perhaps a new term would be
 better given that "specified" already has a meaning for aspects (see 13.1).]
+
+****************************************************************                                                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                     implementing semantic features.
+
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Thursday, April  7, 2011  4:22 AM
+
+The AARM note in 13.3.1 says
+
+      AARM NOTE: The aspect_specification is an optional element
+        in most kinds of declarations. Here is a list of all kinds of
+        declarations and an indication of whether or not they allow aspect clauses,
+        and in some cases a short discussion of why (* = allowed, NO = not allowed)
+
+     ...
+
+        renaming_declaration*  -- There are no
+          -- language-defined aspects specifiable on renames.
+     ...
+
+      generic_formal_parameter_declaration*
+        -- There are no language-defined aspects that
+        -- may be specified on generic formals, but implementations
+        -- might support some. The implementation would have to
+        -- define the matching rule.
+      extended_return_statement  --  NO
+     End of AARM Note.
+
+Should not the chatter about generic formals and renaming be identical? And
+perhaps gathered together at the end of the note.
+
+I don't know whther the !discussion is up for chnage as well but it ought to
+be mentioned there as well. And maybe the business about subprogram bodies.
 
 ****************************************************************                                                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                     implementing semantic features.