CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0054-1.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0054-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0054-1.txt	2013/02/01 06:25:44	1.4
+++ ai12s/ai12-0054-1.txt	2013/05/09 01:31:52	1.5
@@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
 !standard 13.9.2(3/3)
 !class binding interpretation
 !status Amendment 202x 13-01-30
+!status work item 13-02-25 Letter ballot failed (10-2-2)
 !status work item 12-12-08
 !status received 12-12-07
 !priority High
@@ -59,7 +60,8 @@
 AARM Discussion: But it does NOT include raise_expressions within the
 default_expression for a component; those actually raise the exception.
 
-Modify 13.9.2(2-3/3) so it refers to the semantics of "in" rather than directly to the semantics of the predicate, so the newly-modified semantics of "in"
+Modify 13.9.2(2-3/3) so it refers to the semantics of "in" rather than directly to
+the semantics of the predicate, so the newly-modified semantics of "in"
 automatically work for 'Valid:
 
 2   For a prefix X that denotes a scalar object Redundant[(after any implicit
@@ -117,7 +119,7 @@
 
 The following example shows how to raise a particular exception for a particular
 "reason" the predicate fails. If the evaluation of "X in T" evaluates one of the
-raise_exceptions, then "X in T" will be True.
+raise_exceptions, then "X in T" will be False.
 
     type T is ...
         with Predicate =>
@@ -442,7 +444,9 @@
 > I think Randy's point about clarifying what is meant by "formal
 > parameter" is more important than what (if any) word precedes "within".
 
-Well, I still think my suggestion is best.  I can't imagine how "statically within" could be confused to mean dynamically.  If folks don't like it, then please propose an alternative.
+Well, I still think my suggestion is best.  I can't imagine how "statically within"
+could be confused to mean dynamically.  If folks don't like it, then please propose
+an alternative.
 
 Randy comments:
 
@@ -505,3 +509,122 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  9:41 AM
+
+[The relevant part of a larger message - Editor.]
+
+...
+Two editorial comments:
+
+...
+
+In AI12-0054, the new wording starts "There is one exception to the above rule:
+..." I don't remember ever seeing wording like this in the RM.  Is there some
+other way we could accomplish this, or do we agree that this is the best way to
+introduce this special case?  It is also a bit odd (or Bob intentionally being
+ironic?) to be talking about one "exception" to the evaluation rules for "raise
+blah"... ;-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Bob Duff
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  9:55 AM
+
+> In AI12-0054, the new wording starts "There is one exception to the above rule: ..."
+> I don't remember ever seeing wording like this in the RM.
+
+It seems clear enough to me.  It seems better than some other paragraphs, where we try to weave a tangled web of exceptions all into one sentence, "Blah blah blah, except on odd Tuesdays, other than those following the autumnal equinox, during leap years,
 ..."
+
+Anyway, I think the burden is on you (or someone besides me) to suggest an alternative.
+
+>...Is there some
+> other way we could accomplish this, or do we agree that this is the
+>best way to introduce this special case?  It is also a bit odd (or Bob
+>intentionally being ironic?) to be talking about one "exception"
+> to the evaluation rules for "raise blah"... ;-)
+
+The "irony" just an accidental side effect of the wording I chose.  ;-)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  10:11 AM
+
+...
+> Anyway, I think the burden is on you (or someone besides me) to
+> suggest an alternative.
+
+I'll try to craft something.  My first instinct is to put the dynamic semantics
+of the raise-expression into its own paragraph, rather than trying to shoe-horn
+it into the paragraph describing the raise statement. Once it is in its own
+paragraph, the special case of use in predicates can be given more prominence.
+This can also address the issue of not evaluating the string expression when
+appearing in a membership test.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  10:17 AM
+
+I think the wording is fine as is, I would not spend too much time word smithing
+here unless you feel there is something that is unclear.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  12:48 PM
+
+> I'll try to craft something.
+
+Thanks Tuck.
+
+I agree that it is worth going to some effort to avoid
+
+     You know that stuff we said earlier? It wasn't quite right.
+
+wording. It's not *so* bad if the modifier comes immediately after the wording
+it is overriding (as in this case), but it can still lead to confusion (e.g., if
+someone searching the RM for the answer to some question reads the modified rule
+without going on to read the modification),
+
+IMO, it would suffice to add a hint that a modification is coming.
+Perhaps something like
+    Except as described below, ...
+
+If a rule which is going to be overridden/modified later acknowledges this
+explicitly, that should be enough of a cue to avoid confusion.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  1:28 PM
+
+Editorial comment:
+
+In the !discussion section for AI12-0054, we've got
+
+   If the evaluation of "X in T" evaluates one of the raise_exceptions,
+   then "X in T" will be True.
+
+Is this a Boolean-off-by-one error?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Friday, February  1, 2013  6:12 PM
+
+> > In AI12-0054, the new wording starts "There is one
+> exception to the above rule: ..."
+> > I don't remember ever seeing wording like this in the RM.
+...
+> Anyway, I think the burden is on you (or someone besides me) to
+> suggest an alternative.
+
+Yes. Not to mention that we've been discussing the wording of this paragraph for
+the last week, it could have been brought up earlier. (And this bothered me
+since I first saw the wording at the meeting; there never was an appropriate
+point to bring it up when I wasn't writing notes and no one else seemed
+concerned so I didn't push to inject that.)
+
+****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent