CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0068-1.txt

Differences between 1.5 and version 1.6
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0068-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0068-1.txt	2014/07/23 03:35:47	1.5
+++ ai12s/ai12-0068-1.txt	2014/07/30 23:35:55	1.6
@@ -617,3 +617,75 @@
 That is what it says now (or at least that was my intent).
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:36 PM
+
+I hate to bring this up as this AI was so well-liked in Paris, but the wording
+of AI12-0068-1 is a bit weird.
+
+We have:
+
+  Within an aspect_specification for a type or subtype, the current
+  instance represents a value of the type; it is not an object. The
+  nominal subtype of this value is given by the subtype itself, prior to
+  applying any predicate specified directly on the subtype. If the type or
+  subtype is by-reference, the associated object with the value is the
+  object associated (see 6.2) with the execution of the usage name.
+
+The second sentence here only talks about "the subtype", while the other two
+talk about the "type or subtype". It is not crystal clear what "subtype" is
+being talked about in this sentence in the case of a type_declaration. Applying
+the Dewar rule suggests that it is the first subtype, but I'd rather that is
+clear.
+
+Thus I've changed this to:
+
+  Within an aspect_specification for a type or subtype, the current
+  instance represents a value of the type; it is not an object. The
+  nominal subtype of this value is given by the subtype itself (the
+  first subtype in the case of a type_declaration), prior to applying
+  any predicate specified directly on the type or subtype. If the type or
+  subtype is by-reference, the associated object with the value is the
+  object associated (see 6.2) with the execution of the usage name.
+
+Perhaps there is a better way to put this? In any case, consider this my
+editorial review on this AI.
+
+---
+
+In the question not asked department, we didn't define the nominal subtype of
+a current instance of a type or subtype outside of an aspect_specification.
+I can't think of a case where it would matter (since other current instances
+of a type have to be limited and composite, so no case expressions can come
+up) -- but we did try to define that for all uses for Ada 2012 -- and here's
+one we missed.
+
+I'm going to ignore that in the absence of a call to reopen the AI --
+answering a question that has no known effect on the semantics of legal Ada
+programs (much less on any compiler or user) doesn't seem to be a good use of
+our time.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Cousins, Jeff
+Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014  4:41 AM
+
+> Within an aspect_specification for a type or subtype, the current
+> instance represents a value of the type; it is not an object. The
+> nominal subtype of this value is given by the subtype itself (the
+> first subtype in the case of a type_declaration), prior to applying
+> any predicate specified directly on the type or subtype. If the type or
+> subtype is by-reference, the associated object with the value is the
+> object associated (see 6.2) with the execution of the usage name.
+
+Seems reasonable to me.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Erhard Ploedereder
+Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 12:34 PM
+
+Same.
+
+****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent