CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0200-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0200-1.txt	2010/02/13 04:28:44	1.1
+++ ai05s/ai05-0200-1.txt	2010/10/22 00:51:58	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard  12.7(16)                               10-02-12    AI05-0200-1/00
+!standard  12.7(4.1/2)                               10-10-21    AI05-0200-1/01
 !class binding interpretation 10-02-12
 !status work item 10-02-12
 !status received 09-09-24
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 
 !summary
 
-** TBD **
+Legality rules for formal packages with box associations are clarified.
 
 !question
 
@@ -59,18 +59,28 @@
 
 !wording
 
-** TBD **
+Add after 12.7 (4.1/2)
 
+The rules for matching between formal_package_associations and the generic
+formals of the template are as follows:
+
+If all of the formal_package_associations are given by generic associations, the
+set of generic_actual_parameters of the formal_package_associations shall be a
+legal set of actuals for an instantiation of the template.
+
+If a formal_package_association for a formal type T of the template is given by
+<>, then the set of generic_actual_parameters, after replacing the <> with a new
+type derived from T, shall be a legal set of actuals for an instantiation of
+the template.
+
+
 !discussion
 
 We want the generic in the question to be illegal. It serves no purpose to
 postpone the error until it is instantiated.
 
-It escapes the author as to how best accomplish this. Probably additional rules
-need to be added after 12.7(4.1/2), but it's not clear what those ought to be.
-
 
---!corrigendum 3.9.3(4/2)
+--!corrigendum 12.7(4.1/2)
 
 
 !ACATS Test
@@ -161,5 +171,23 @@
 the rules in 12.4 would say "The expected type for the actual [Val] is the type
 of the formal".  But the type of the formal is <> --- i.e. there really isn't a
 type.  So how would the rules apply in this case?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Edmond Schonberg
+Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010  1:34 PM
+
+I've tried to make the amount of text commensurate with the importance of the issue.
+
+[Following was version /01 of this AI.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010  5:50 PM
+
+Yeah, that seems wise.
+
+Your wording seems good to me.
 
 ****************************************************************