CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0216-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0216-1.txt	2010/08/10 23:54:18	1.2
+++ ai05s/ai05-0216-1.txt	2010/10/08 05:05:13	1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard  D.7(3/3)                             10-08-10    AI05-0216-1/02
+!standard  D.7(3/3)                             10-10-07    AI05-0216-1/03
 !class binding interpretation 10-06-12
 !status Amendment 2012 10-08-10
 !status ARG Approved 8-0-1  10-06-19
@@ -10,14 +10,14 @@
 !subject No_Task_Hierarchy is still wrong
 !summary
 
-Reword No_Task_Hierarchy to say what we meant.
+The Restriction No_Task_Hierarchy is reworded.
 
 !question
 
 AARM D.7(3.a/3) says that a function cannot return an object with a task part.
-But that doesn't seem to follow from the actual wording. D.7(3) says "No task
-depends on a task...", not "No task depends on a nested master...".  If a
-function is called at the library level, the only *task* on which the task
+But that doesn't seem to follow from the actual wording. D.7(3/3) [from AI05-0013-1]
+says "No task depends on a task...", not "No task depends on a nested master...".
+If a function is called at the library level, the only *task* on which the task
 created by the return statement depends is the environment task (see 9.3(4)), so
 the restriction wouldn't be violated. What is the intent?
 
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
 !discussion
 
 The old wording talked about depending on tasks, but there are many masters
-that are not tasks (such as subprograms). And we definitely doesn't want to
+that are not tasks (such as subprograms). And we definitely don't want to
 depend on a subprogram -- that's precisely what this restriction is intended
 to prevent.