CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0244-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0244-1.txt	2011/02/16 04:46:45	1.1
+++ ai05s/ai05-0244-1.txt	2011/03/10 03:41:40	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 4.3.2(5.1/3)                              11-02-15    AI05-0244-1/00
+!standard 4.3.2(5.1/3)                              11-02-16    AI05-0244-1/01
 !class binding interpretation 11-02-15
 !status work item 11-02-15
 !status received 11-01-19
@@ -39,8 +39,24 @@
 
 !wording
 
-** TBD **
+Replace 4.3.2(5.1/3):
+   If the ancestor_part is a function call and the type of the
+   ancestor_part is limited, then the ancestor_part shall have a
+   constrained nominal subtype unless there are no components needed in
+   the record_component_association_list.
+
+with:
 
+   If the type of the ancestor_part is limited
+   and at least one component is needed in the
+   record_component_association_list, then the ancestor part shall not
+   be
+      - a call to a function with an unconstrained result subtype; or
+      - a parenthesized or qualified expression whose operand
+        would violate thie rule; or
+      - a conditional expression having at least one dependent
+        expression which would violate this rule.
+
 !discussion
 
 --!corrigendum 12.5.1(5/2)
@@ -101,3 +117,57 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011  1:06 PM
+
+> If you could bring some wording for AI05-0244-1 to the meeting, it 
+> would be appreciated. It was your question originally; the AI is empty 
+> except for the question.
+
+[Following was the wording in version /01 of this AI - Editor.]
+
+====
+
+For conditional expressions, do we want an exemption which allows "bad"
+dependent expressions if they are statically unevaluated?
+I'm thinking "no".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011  1:06 PM
+
+...
+> If the type of the ancestor_part is limited and at least one component 
+> is needed in the record_component_association_list, then the ancestor 
+> part shall not be
+> - a call to a function with an unconstrained result subtype; or
+      "or" => "nor"
+> - a parenthesized or qualified expression whose operand would violate 
+> thie rule; or
+      "thie" => "this"; "or" => "nor"
+> - a conditional expression having at least one dependent expression 
+> which would violate this rule.
+>
+> ====
+>
+> For conditional expressions, do we want an exemption which allows 
+> "bad" dependent expressions if they are statically unevaluated?
+> I'm thinking "no".
+
+I agree.  This is more of a "structural" restriction, not a value-based one,
+so making it be different for something that is statically unevaluated doesn't
+really make sense.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011  1:36 PM
+
+> For conditional expressions, do we want an exemption which allows 
+> "bad" dependent expressions if they are statically unevaluated?
+> I'm thinking "no".
+
+I agree with your "no".
+
+****************************************************************