CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0225-1.txt

Differences between 1.2 and version 1.3
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0225-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0225-1.txt	2011/01/25 05:26:14	1.2
+++ ai05s/ai05-0225-1.txt	2011/01/27 06:06:17	1.3
@@ -1,5 +1,4 @@
-!standard  9.5(7.1/2)                                11-01-23    AI05-0225-1/02
-!standard  4.1.3(13.2/2)
+!standard  9.5(7.1/2)                                11-01-25    AI05-0225-1/03
 !class binding interpretation 10-10-21
 !status work item 10-10-21
 !status received 10-06-04
@@ -49,8 +48,13 @@
 
 !wording
 
-Add after 4.1.3(13.2/2): [Legality Rules]
+Replace 9.5(7.1/2):
 
+The view of the target protected object associated with a call of a protected
+procedure or entry shall be a variable.
+
+with:
+
 The name of a protected procedure or entry of a constant view of a protected
 object is illegal in the following cases: the name of a call, the prefix of an
 Access attribute, the name of a subprogram_renaming_declaration, an
@@ -62,11 +66,6 @@
 say P'Count in a protected function body, even though the protected object is a
 constant view there.
 
-Delete 9.5(7.1/2): [Legality Rules]
-
-The view of the target protected object associated with a call of a protected
-procedure or entry shall be a variable.
-
 !discussion
 
 This problem is similar to the one recently fixed for several
@@ -134,7 +133,6 @@
 it applies only to calls and not other uses of the protected procedure
 or entry.
 
-
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
@@ -157,5 +155,24 @@
 with selected components. It would seem to make more sense to just replace the
 existing rule in 9.5(7.1/2) with this one. (We are deleting that rule anyway.)
 Or maybe there is a better place for this rule than either of these places??
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011  11:20 PM
+
+> This seems like an odd place for this rule, given that 4.1.3 is
+> discussing selected components, but this rule covers some cases that
+> have nothing to do with selected components. It would seem to make
+> more sense to just replace the existing rule in 9.5(7.1/2) with this
+> one. (We are deleting that rule
+> anyway.)
+
+Sounds good to me.
+
+>...Or maybe there is a better place for this rule than either of these
+>places??
+
+Nah.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent