CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0188-1.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0188-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0188-1.txt	2010/02/04 02:31:24	1.3
+++ ai05s/ai05-0188-1.txt	2010/02/04 07:11:43	1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-!standard 4.5.7 (0)                                10-02-03  AI05-0188-1/03
+!standard 4.3.3(14)                                10-02-03  AI05-0188-1/03
+!standard 4.4(1)
+!standard 4.5.8(0)
+!standard 4.9(12)
+!standard 4.9(33)
+!standard 7.5(2.1/2)
 !class amendment 09-11-03
 !status work item 09-11-03
 !status received 09-11-03
@@ -172,8 +177,7 @@
 
 Add after 4.9(12):
 
-* A case_expression all of whose conditions and dependent_expressions are
-  static expressions;
+* A case_expression all of whose expressions are static expressions;
 
 AI05-0147-1 calls for the replacement of 4.9(33).
 Add one more bullet:
@@ -412,5 +416,44 @@
 quantified_expressions, which also have to be referred to in many of these
 places (although the semantics is somewhat different). Would it look weird to
 combine two of the three new kinds of expressions, and not the third??
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Ed Schonberg
+Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2010  8:30 PM
+
+> I also have to wonder if this solution works very well for 
+> quantified_expressions, which also have to be referred to in many of 
+> these places (although the semantics is somewhat different). Would it 
+> look weird to combine two of the three new kinds of expressions, and 
+> not the third??
+
+The resolution rules for conditional expressions and case expressions are 
+similar, but completely different from those of quantified expressions. The
+latter are always boolean, and there is nothing in the context that impacts
+the resolution of the container expression and the predicate, so they have
+to have their own section.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2010  8:43 PM
+
+One more thing... (unless Steve Jobs has that trademarked :-)
+
+> Bob Duff writes:
+
+>Add after 4.9(12):
+>
+>* A case_expression all of whose conditions and dependent_expressions are
+>  static expressions;
+
+There aren't any conditions in a case_expression, so this is clearly wrong.
+There isn't a name for the expression that controls the choice, so we can't
+say that here. But I suppose that we don't need to differentiate here:
+
+* A case_expression all of whose expressions are static expressions;
+
+seems to be good enough.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent