CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt

Differences between 1.11 and version 1.12
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt	2017/09/06 03:28:43	1.11
+++ ai12s/ai12-0127-1.txt	2017/10/06 06:01:28	1.12
@@ -1841,3 +1841,129 @@
 not worth worrying about).
 
 ****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017  7:12 PM
+
+I was tasked with making a nit-picking pass over this AI.
+
+All I found was the following, presented in the usual grocery-list normal form.
+
+====
+
+
+
+"starting with another value" => "starting with a copy of another value"
+
+---
+
+"is the index type of type of the delta aggregate" => "is the index type of
+THE type of the delta aggregate"
+
+---
+
+In 4.3.3(17/5) replace
+   ... only if it is the single discrete_choice of its
+   discrete_choice_list, and there is only one
+   array_component_association in the array_aggregate.
+with
+   ..  only if it is the single discrete_choice of its
+       discrete_choice_list, and either there is only one
+       array_component_association in the
+       enclosing array_component_association_list or the enclosing
+       aggregate is an array_delta_aggregate
+       REDUNDANT:[, not an array_aggregate].
+
+We want to allow
+
+   (X with delta Lo1 .. Hi1 => This, Lo2 .. Hi2 => That)
+
+where every expression in sight is non-static, but we don't want to allow
+
+   (X with delta Lo1 .. Hi1 | Lo2 .. Hi2 => This)
+
+in that case.
+
+---
+
+In the legality rules, we've got
+   "the record_component_association shall not use the box
+    symbol <>"
+
+The use of the word "the" incorrectly presupposes that there is exactly one
+record_component_association. Ditto for "and the component_choice_list shall
+not use others".
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017  7:47 PM
+
+> I was tasked with making a nit-picking pass over this AI.
+
+You're tasked with producing a full update based on the discussion from last
+October (it wasn't updated for Vienna so it wasn't discussed). It was assigned
+to you as "this sort of detail seems like a job for Steve Baird"
+(quoting from the Pittsburgh minutes).
+
+(The "sort of detail" is checking that the wording is consistent with all of
+the existing aggregate wording; I was personally concerned with record
+component completeness rules, but others are called out in the minutes --
+enough issues had been brought up that a complete check seemed to be needed.)
+
+This is an important AI that it would be good to progress.
+
+> All I found was the following, presented in the usual grocery-list 
+> normal form.
+
+I could deal with the first three, but the fourth is just a complaint without
+a fix. As the (now) primary author, you need to propose a fix for everything.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017  7:54 PM
+
+I happened to notice that the last update to this AI (sent by Florian) happened
+exactly a year ago, although the current date on the AI is shown as Oct. 6,
+2016.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017  7:58 PM
+
+Sorry for the noise!  My frivolous message was only intended to be sent to Mr.
+Baird.  (And sorry also for this additional noise...)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017  8:16 PM
+
+..
+> I happened to notice that the last update to this AI (sent by
+> Florian) happened exactly a year ago, although the current date on the 
+> AI is shown as Oct. 6, 2016.
+
+I did notice that the AI was almost exactly a year old when replying to Steve,
+but I didn't see any need to work that in to my reply. The Ghost AI will be
+dated today, for instance, since I'm processing it tonight.
+
+I usually date AIs the date that I post them, which is not necessarily the
+date that they got sent to me. (Sometimes I adjust the date to ensure that
+every version has a different date, and sometimes I just do something else
+for no reason.)
+
+So now more noise has been generated. ;-)
+
+Moral: Take care when replying the mail from the ARG list, as the list is set
+up to encourage public replies to the list and not the private replies to the
+author.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017  7:12 PM
+
+****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent