CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt
--- ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt 2020/12/04 07:59:28 1.41
+++ ai12s/ai12-0005-1.txt 2020/12/09 06:23:52 1.42
@@ -2757,6 +2757,10 @@
container implementation b[y]{e} nonblocking
-----
+A.18.2(254.a/3)
+ Note that such an implementation would [be ]require care,
+
+-----
A.18.3(70.c/5)
by multiple operations (sequenti[u]ally or in parallel)
@@ -2764,8 +2768,72 @@
fixed them all.]
***************************************************************
+
+[From the AARM Review of Tucker Taft (October 2020) - Editor.]
+
+--------
+3.10.2
+
+Two typos:
+
+41.bb/5: Correction: Tightened the cases where an explicitly
+aliased parameter has special accessibility, to avoid needing
+to pass the required dynamic accessibility to functions that
+have explicitly ali{a}sed parameters. The changes affect[s]
+programs that use the dynamic accessibility of an explicitly
+aliased parameter within a return statement of a function
+(typically using anonymous access types). This can mean that
+a program that would have been legal and worked in Ada 2012
+as defined would raise Program_Error or be rejected in Ada
+202x. One such example is:
+
+Another typo:
+
+41.ee/5: At (2), there is a check that the dynamic
+accessibility level of B is not deeper than the master of the
+call for F2 (which is defined to be the master of the call
+for F1). In Ada 2012, since the reference is inside of a
+return statement, the dynamic accessibility of A.Comp'Access
+is the master of the call for F1 - meaning the check at (2)
+should pass. In Ada 202x, the [the] dynamic accessibility of
+A.Comp'Access is local for for F1 - meaning the check at (2)
+should fail and raise Program_Error.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+[From the AARM Review of John Barnes (October 2020) - Editor.]
+
+11.4.2 23.e/5 The last part of this seems garbled at first sight. Some
+such requirements etc. Maybe the trouble is simply that Suppressed should
+be suppressed.
+
+11.5 31.m/5 and n/5 It would be clearer if m/5 said The various assertion
+checks for language defined packages such as Calendar are new. It then
+becomes clearer (in n/5) that also adding Program_Error_Check_and
+Tasking_Check covers the lot.
+
+11.6 7.g/3 At first sight I thought that AI05-0299-1 would explain but that
+is just about using subclause instead of clause. It is about the fact that
+in Ada 83, the clause Suppressing Checks was numbered 11.7. It should be
+changed to read something like
+
+We moved subclause "Suppressing Checks" which was numbered 11.7 from after
+11.6 to before 11.6 etc.
+
+12.3 7.a/5 Duplicate a in "...apply to a a generic..."
+
+12.3 11.aa/3 "... every Semantic Item is sucked in by one of those."
+Sounds vulgar. Perhaps "is covered" rather than "is sucked in".
+
+[Editor's note: I used "is included indirectly" as that is the meaning.
+It's a bit weird to be wordsmithing Ada 9x notes, given they've already
+been around 25+ years.]
+
+12.3 18.g/5 "an generic instantiation" should be "a generic instantiation".
+
+***************************************************************
-Editor's note (November 23, 2020): All of the items above this
+Editor's note (December 8, 2020): All of the items above this
marker have been included in the working version of the AARM.
****************************************************************
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent