CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0086-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0086-1.txt	2013/10/31 05:43:22	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0086-1.txt	2015/01/27 00:20:56	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 4.3.1(17/3)                                  13-10-30    AI12-0086-1/01
+!standard 4.3.1(17/3)                              15-01-26    AI12-0086-1/02
 !standard 4.3.1(19/3)
 !class Amendment 13-10-30
 !status work item 13-10-30
@@ -58,10 +58,6 @@
 
 !wording
 
-[Editor's note: This wording was Steve's original wording updated
-with suggestions from Bob and others in e-mail, plus a couple of minor
-issues that I noticed.]
-
 Replace 4.3.1(17/3)
 
    The value of a discriminant that governs a variant_part P shall
@@ -70,47 +66,27 @@
    governing the variant_part enclosing V.
 
 with
-
-   Given a variant part P governed by a discriminant whose type is T, an
-   expression of type T is said to *determine a variant* of P if
-   either
-     * the value of the expression is static; or
-     * the expression is the name of an object whose nominal subtype
-       is static and constrained, there is at least one value
-       belonging to the subtype that satisfies any predicate of the subtype,
-       and there exists exactly one discrete_choice_list of P
-       that covers every value belonging to that static subtype that satisfies the
-       constaints and predicates of that subtype.
-
-[Editor's note: "of" was changed to "belonging to" since that's the defined
-term to describe which values are in a subtype. The middle part is new and
-is intended to require that the subtype has at least one value; the wording
-was lifted from 3.5.5(7.1/3), which makes the same requirement.]
-
-   The value of a discriminant that governs a variant_part P shall
-   be given by an expression that determines a variant of P, unless
-   P is nested within a variant V that is not
-   selected by the discriminant value governing the variant_part
-   enclosing V.
 
-Append to the end of 4.3.1(19).
-
-   If the value of a discriminant is given by a non-static
-   expression that is required by the above rules to determine
-   a variant of some variant_part [of the type of the aggregate],
-   and the evaluation of that expression yields a value that does not
-   belong to the nominal subtype of the expression, then Constraint_Error
-   is raised.
+   The value of a discriminant that governs a variant_part P shall be
+   given by a static expression, or by a nonstatic expression having a
+   constrained static nominal subtype, unless P is nested within a
+   variant V that is not selected by the discriminant value governing
+   the variant_part enclosing V. In the case of a nonstatic expression,
+   there shall be exactly one discrete_choice_list of P that covers
+   each value that belongs to the nominal subtype and satisfies the
+   predicates of the subtype, and there shall be at least one such value.
+
+Append to the end of 4.3.1(19):
+
+   If the value of a discriminant that governs a (selected) variant_part
+   P is given by a nonstatic expression, and the evaluation of that
+   expression yields a value that does not belong to the nominal subtype
+   of the expression, then Constraint_Error is raised.
 
    AARM Ramification: In this case, the value of the discriminant is
    outside the base range of its type, or is an invalid representation.
-   This is the same rule as the similar case for case statements.
+   This is a rule similar to that used for case statements.
 
-[TBD: instead of the awkward "is required by the above rules" wording, we could
-define yet another term in the 4.3.1(17/3) stuff with something like "Such an
-expression is said to be aggregate governing" or "variant part determining" or
-somesuch and then refer to that new term in the dynamic semantics rule.]
-
 !discussion
 
 With these rules, the compiler always knows at compile-time which components
@@ -1885,5 +1861,39 @@
 
 Yeah!  I like to say that "others" means ALL the others, including the ones you
 might invent next week or next year.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015  5:38 PM
+
+Here is an attempt to simplify the wording for this AI.  [This is version /02 of
+this AI - Editor.] I think this is important functionality, as I have worked on
+several programs that bump into the awkwardness that occurs any time you have a
+variant-part where a given variant has more than one choice in its choice list.
+Trying to create aggregates for these beasts is painful.
+
+I wanted to rewrite this in a way that didn't introduce yet another term.
+Nitpickers might complain about the use of "(selected)" in the run-time check,
+but I think the meaning is pretty clear.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015  5:43 PM
+
+The following, which appears at the beginning of the wording, is a lie at this
+stage:
+
+[Editor's note: This wording was Steve's original wording updated with
+suggestions from Bob and others in e-mail, plus a couple of minor issues that I
+noticed.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015  5:50 PM
+
+OK, I'll take it out when I file it. [And I did - Editor.]
 
 ****************************************************************