CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0224-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0224-1.txt	2011/01/25 08:00:08	1.6
+++ ai05s/ai05-0224-1.txt	2011/01/29 01:03:25	1.7
@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
-!standard  D.7(7)                             11-01-14    AI05-0224-1/01
+!standard  D.7(7)                             11-01-28    AI05-0224-1/02
 !standard  D.7(10.3/2)
-!standard  D.7(19.1/2)
 !class binding interpretation 10-10-21
 !status work item 10-10-21
 !status received 10-06-07
@@ -44,22 +43,6 @@
 allocated object has no protected subcomponents. Program_Error is raised if this
 check fails.
 
-Add after D.7(19.1/2)
-
-The dynamic checks associated with the No_Task_Allocators and
-No_Protected_Type_Allocators described above are performed immediately before
-the point in the evaluation of the allocator where any allocated tasks would be
-activated. In the case of call to a function with a limited class-wide result
-type where the call is used to provide (directly, or through intervening
-function calls) the initial value for an initialized allocator, these checks may
-also be performed earlier, as part of the execution of a return statement.
-
-AARM note:
-If checks performed at return statements are performed in such a way that it is
-impossible for the check performed at the point of the allocator to fail, then
-that latter check may be eliminated (like any check whose success is
-guaranteed).
-
 !discussion
 
 Attempting to enforce these restrictions at compile-time for class-wide types
@@ -369,3 +352,39 @@
 Not sure what to do here...
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011  3:10 PM
+
+Based on yesterday's phone meeting, I now suggest that the !wording section of
+this AI consist of only a prefix of what I previously suggested. We should retain
+only:
+
+   Add after D.7(7):
+
+   In the case of an initialized allocator of an access type
+   whose designated type is class-wide and limited, a check
+   is made that the specific type of the allocated object
+   has no task subcomponents. Program_Error is raised if
+   this check fails.
+
+   Add after D.7(10.3/2):
+
+   In the case of an initialized allocator of an access type
+   whose designated type is class-wide and limited, a check
+   is made that the specific type of the allocated object
+   has no protected subcomponents. Program_Error is raised if
+   this check fails.
+
+Please ignore the subsequent wording changes that were previously proposed, beginning
+with
+
+   Add after D.7(19.1/2)
+
+   The dynamic checks associated with the No_Task_Allocators
+   and No_Protected_Type_Allocators described above ...
+
+and including the associated AARM note.
+
+****************************************************************
+