CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0174-1.txt
--- ai12s/ai12-0174-1.txt 2015/11/18 01:23:01 1.2
+++ ai12s/ai12-0174-1.txt 2015/11/19 04:00:07 1.3
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
-!standard B.3.3(9/3) 15-10-08 AI12-0174-1/01
+!standard B.3.3(9/3) 15-11-17 AI12-0174-1/02
!class binding interpretation 15-10-08
+!status ARG Approved 8-0-0 15-10-16
!status work item 15-10-08
!status received 15-09-06
!priority Low
@@ -53,7 +54,7 @@
Modify B.3.3(9/3):
Any name that denotes a discriminant of an object of an unchecked union type
-shall occur within the declarative region of the type{ or within the selector_name
+shall occur within the declarative region of the type{ or as the selector_name
of an aggregate}, and shall not occur within a record_representation_clause.
!discussion
@@ -61,15 +62,11 @@
It's clearly silly to only allow positional notation for an aggregate of an
unchecked union type; it's a clear omission.
-
Alternatively, it could have been that someone used a hair-splitting approach to
the meaning of B.3.3(9/3). The argument goes that a selector_name denotes a
component of a type, not of an object, so B.3.3(9/3) does not apply (it only
-seems to apply to components of objects). But that's a shaky argument; 4.3.3(9)
-just says that the selector_name must denote a needed component -- what that's
-a component of (the type or the anonynous aggregate object) is left to the
-imagination. And in any case it's better to be crystal-clear rather than to
-depend on hair-splitting to define the meaning of any RM prose.
+seems to apply to components of objects). But it's better to be crystal-clear
+rather than to depend on hair-splitting to define the meaning of any RM prose.
!ASIS
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent