CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0243-1.txt

Differences between 1.6 and version 1.7
Log of other versions for file ai05s/ai05-0243-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0243-1.txt	2011/04/02 07:30:36	1.6
+++ ai05s/ai05-0243-1.txt	2011/04/08 02:02:02	1.7
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
-!standard 10.2.1(11/3)                              11-03-23    AI05-0243-1/04
+!standard 10.2.1(11/3)                              11-04-07    AI05-0243-1/05
 !standard 10.2.1(17/3)
+!standard A.3(1/2)
 !class Amendment 10-10-25
+!status ARG Approved  7-0-1  10-04-07
 !status work item  11-02-11
 !status received 11-02-11
 !priority Medium
@@ -55,11 +57,11 @@
 
 AARM Ramification: A limited view is not a library unit, so any rule that
 starts "declared pure library unit" does not apply to a limited view. In
-particular, the 3rd and last sentences never apply to limited views. OTOH,
+particular, the 3rd and last sentences never apply to limited views. However,
 a limited view is a library_item, so rules that discuss "declared pure
-library_items" do include
+library_items" do include limited views.
 
-[Editor's note: We could have said "declared pure compilation unit" instead;
+[Editor's notes: We could have said "declared pure compilation unit" instead;
 a limited view should be a compilation unit by 10.1.1(9) -- but since that
 sentence starts "when it is clear from context", I wanted to avoid arguments
 by using "library_item". I extended "declared pure" to all compilation units
@@ -69,8 +71,8 @@
 We have to define "declared pure" as it is widely used in the Standard. We also
 need to define limited views as declared pure, so that rules like 10.2(16)
 work (we surely want limited views to elaborate early). I checked all of the
-uses of "declared pure" in the standard, and have suggested changed all that
-need correction in this AI.]
+uses of "declared pure" in the standard, and have suggested changes for
+all that need correction in this AI. End Editor's notes.]
 
 
 Replace 10.2.1(11/3) [as modified by AI05-0034-1]:
@@ -103,13 +105,12 @@
 
 Similarly, with this definition, the implementation advice 10.2.1(12) does not
 apply to a limited view; but since a limited view only includes incomplete views
-which don't have representations, this seems irrelevant.]
+which don't have representations, that seems irrelevant.]
 
 
 In A.3(1/2), replace "pure" with "declared pure".
 
 
-
 Replace E.2(2):
 
 A *categorization pragma* is a library unit pragma (see 10.1.5) that restricts the
@@ -124,7 +125,7 @@
 purposes of this Annex, the aspect Pure (see 10.2.1) is considered a categorization aspect.
 
 [Editor's note: We don't actually need the first sentence, other than that it pulls
-in the library unit pragma rules.]
+in the library unit pragma rules -- and we do need that.]
 
 Replace E.2(4/1):
 
@@ -157,7 +158,7 @@
 Replace E.2.1(4):
 
 A pragma Shared_Passive is used to specify that a library unit is a *shared passive
-library unit*, namely that the Shared_Passive operational aspect of the library unit
+library unit*, namely that the Shared_Passive aspect of the library unit
 is True. The following restrictions apply to such a library unit:
 
 Modify E.2.1(6):
@@ -233,10 +234,11 @@
 
 ---
 
-Alternative: We could instead define a single aspect called "Categorization",
-and have it take special identifiers Pure, Remote_Types, Shared_Passive, and
-Remote_Call_Interface (and Normal?). Then mapping the pragmas to those values.
-That would enforce that only one of those pragmas could be given per unit.
+There is an interesting alternative: We could instead define a single aspect
+called "Categorization", and have it take special identifiers Pure, Remote_Types,
+Shared_Passive, and Remote_Call_Interface (and Normal?). Then the pragmas would
+be mapped to those values. That would enforce that only one of those pragmas
+could be given per unit.
 
 However, that would leave Preelaborate as the odd man out; it can be usefully
 combined with some of these but not all.
@@ -1380,5 +1382,23 @@
 
 Your suggested changes to resurrect the term "declared pure"
 seem fine to me.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: John Barnes
+Sent: Thursday, April 7, 2011  5:58 AM
+
+!wording
+
+In the AARM ramification please replace OTOH by However.
+
+One should  not write "On the other hand" without a previous "On the one hand".
+
+In classical Greek one writes    men   ... de ...  that is
+
+men ...   de ...
+
+O dear.  It's all greek to me   Huh this was in Symbol but Mr Gates has lost 
+it.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent