CVS difference for ai05s/ai05-0262-1.txt

--- ai05s/ai05-0262-1.txt	2012/01/05 06:19:33	1.9
+++ ai05s/ai05-0262-1.txt	2012/01/27 23:23:12	1.10
@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@
 
 Add to 3.10.2(16.1/2):
 
-Similarly, the dependent_expression of a conditional_expression is considered to be used in
+Similarly, a dependent_expression of a conditional_expression is considered to be used in
 a context if the conditional_expression itself is used in that context.
 
 Modify 4.3.3(18):
@@ -1028,7 +1028,7 @@
 In the above rules, the operand of a view conversion, parenthesized expression or
 @fa<qualified_expression> is considered to be used in a context if the view conversion,
 parenthesized expression or @fa<qualified_expression> itself is used in that context.
-Similarly, the @i<dependent_>@fa<expression> of a @fa<conditional_expression> is
+Similarly, a @i<dependent_>@fa<expression> of a @fa<conditional_expression> is
 considered to be used in a context if the @fa<conditional_expression> itself is
 used in that context.
 
@@ -4922,5 +4922,45 @@
 Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011  4:18 AM
 
 We already caught that. I spotted it when doing an example in the rationale.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012  9:29 PM
+
+AI05-0262-1 recommends new wording for Vector'Read:
+
+   <Vector>'Read reads the representation of a <vector> from the stream,
+   and assigns to Item a <vector> with the same length and elements as
+   was written by <Vector>'Write.
+
+but the AARM A.18.2(88.1/3) on the web still reads:
+
+   Vector'Read reads exactly Length(Vector) elements of Vector from
+   the stream and consumes any additional information written by Vector'Write.
+
+Here is the version of the AARM I am reviewing:
+
+   http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12aarm/html/AA-A-18-2.html
+
+Am I confused, or is this a real oversight, or a fix to the standard that has
+not yet been made?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012  11:29 PM
+
+We changed this wording during the Denver ARG meeting; I've updated the AIs with
+the changes, along with the working draft of the Standard, but of course I haven't
+yet posted a new draft until after I receive and process all of the comments on the
+current draft. So there are many things that are slightly out-of-sync; it might help
+to review the minutes for changes made in Denver if you have a question.
+
+Given that it typically takes a full working day to create and post new drafts, this
+is not something that I want to do frequently.  Besides, I finished applying those
+changes just before New Year's; the ARM review had been ongoing for more than 6 weeks
+at that point. It wouldn't make sense for people to be reviewing multiple versions
+of the Standard, it would confuse everyone.
 
 ****************************************************************