CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0190-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0190-1.txt	2010/02/25 00:55:13	1.3
+++ ai05s/ai05-0190-1.txt	2010/02/25 05:01:43	1.4
@@ -429,3 +429,59 @@
 that isn't a huge issue.
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010  7:00 PM
+
+> I don't see any wording in here defining where these pragmas apply.
+> You seem to assume that it is scoped like Suppress, but that doesn't
+> happen automatically; there has to be some words like 11.5(7.1-2/2) somewhere.
+
+If it's a configuration pragma, the general rules about those work.
+If it's in a package spec or decl_part, then it says "within the pragma's
+immediate scope", except within an inner one.  Isn't that sufficient?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010  8:08 PM
+
+> Found it in the Legality Rules. It was formatted as all one long line,
+> and didn't see that it was out to character 700.
+
+That's odd.  I don't use an editor that does that sort of thing.
+Maybe it was garbled on your end?  I don't normally produce texts with
+700-character-long lines!
+
+>... It seems weird to have it in
+> Legality Rules (it's a definition and seems to belong in Static
+>Semantics),  but that isn't a huge issue.
+
+Not sure why I put in in Legality Rules -- probably just a mistake.
+It's pretty messy, anyway.  I wish we just had some global way to say such
+things...
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010  8:59 PM
+
+> That's odd.  I don't use an editor that does that sort of thing.
+> Maybe it was garbled on your end?  I don't normally produce texts with
+> 700-character-long lines!
+
+Outlook 2003 seems to remove single line breaks when cutting-and-pasting. So you
+might have sent something friendly, but it might have turned into a mess by the
+time I filed it.
+
+> >... It seems weird to have it in
+> > Legality Rules (it's a definition and seems to belong in Static
+> >Semantics),  but that isn't a huge issue.
+>
+> Not sure why I put in in Legality Rules -- probably just a mistake.
+> It's pretty messy, anyway.  I wish we just had some global way to say
+> such things...
+
+Probably because the last Legality Rule depends on it slightly.
+
+****************************************************************