CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0038-1.txt

Differences between 1.15 and version 1.16
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0038-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0038-1.txt	2015/01/31 01:45:26	1.15
+++ ai12s/ai12-0038-1.txt	2015/02/27 02:47:06	1.16
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 !standard E.2.1(7/1)                           15-01-27    AI12-0038-1/07
 !class binding interpretation 12-11-28
 !status Corrigendum 2015 12-12-31
+!status ARG Approved 7-0-3  15-02-26
 !status work item 13-01-04
 !status ARG Approved 5-0-4  12-12-09
 !status work item 12-11-28
@@ -13,10 +14,6 @@
 Shared_Passive restrictions have to be adjusted because declared-pure
 packages now allow the declarations of access types.
 
-[Editor's note: These changes were included in the draft Standard when they
-were initially approved. We're no longer certain that they are correct, so
-they have much more risk of change.]
-
 !question
 
 Shared passive packages are allowed to depend on declared-pure packages.
@@ -172,13 +169,15 @@
 designates a class-wide type, nor a type with a part that is of a task type or
 protected type with @fa<entry_declaration>s;>
 
-@xbullet<it shall not contain a library-level declaration that contains a
-@fa<name> that denotes a type declared within a declared-pure package, if that
-type has a part that is of an access type.>
+@xbullet<it shall not contain a library-level declaration that contains a name
+that denotes a type declared within a declared-pure package, if that type has
+a part that is of an access type; for the purposes of this rule, the parts
+considered include those of the full views of any private types or private
+extensions.>
 
 !ACATS test
 
-An ACATS B-Test should be created to check that the new rule is actually
+An ACATS B-Test should be created to check that the new rules are actually
 enforced; the example in discussion could be used as a basis.
 
 !ASIS
@@ -601,7 +600,8 @@
 Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015  3:34 PM
 
 > Here is an update to AI12-0038, now version 6, relating to
-> shared-passive package use of access types from declared-pure packages.  It is pretty nasty, in that it breaks privacy.
+> shared-passive package use of access types from declared-pure packages.  It
+> is pretty nasty, in that it breaks privacy.
 
 I agree it's nasty to break privacy.
 
@@ -617,9 +617,12 @@
 >      type has a part that is of an access type}.
 
 Shouldn't this wording say explicitly that we're breaking privacy?
-Normally, compile-time rules are understood to refer to visible views of things, but here we intend to refer to the full view(s).
-Something like, "For the purposes of this rule, we refer to the full view of any private types or private extensions."?
-Or, "For the purposes of this rule, the 'parts' include those of the full views of any private types or private extensions."?
+Normally, compile-time rules are understood to refer to visible views of
+things, but here we intend to refer to the full view(s).
+Something like, "For the purposes of this rule, we refer to the full view of
+any private types or private extensions."? Or, "For the purposes of this rule,
+the 'parts' include those of the full views of any private types or private
+extensions."?
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent