CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0176-1.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0176-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0176-1.txt	2015/12/18 02:07:01	1.3
+++ ai12s/ai12-0176-1.txt	2016/01/29 01:42:04	1.4
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
-!standard 6.1.1(26.4/4)                              15-10-08  AI12-0176-1/01
-!class binding interpretation 15-10-08
+!standard 6.1.1(26.4/4)                              16-01-28  AI12-0176-1/02
+!class confirmation 16-01-28
+!status work item 16-01-28
 !status ARG Approved 7-0-1  15-10-16
 !status work item 15-10-08
 !status received 15-09-25
 !priority Low
 !difficulty Easy
-!qualifier Omission
 !subject 6.1.1(26.4/4) only applies to tagged types
@@ -17,22 +17,18 @@
 wording uses T'Class. Clearly, this only applies to tagged types and the wording
 should say so, right? (Yes.)
-(See Summary.)
+This wording originated in AI12-0032-1. In that AI, and in the Corrigendum
+documents, the wording is:
+* If X is of a specific tagged type T then
-Modify 6.1.1(26.4/4):
+One presumes the questioner was reading one of the versions of the
+consolidated RM, where indeed the wording is missing the word "tagged". But
+the consolidated RM is unofficial; the wording in the Corrigendum document 
+is used if there is a difference. Thus there is nothing to fix here.
-* If X is of a specific {tagged} type T then
-3.4.1(3/2) tells us that all explicitly declared types are specific types.
-That's clearly not what we want for this bullet, since T'Class is only defined
-for tagged types. So a correction is needed.
 No ASIS effect.
@@ -74,5 +70,17 @@
 course nonsense for untagged types. So it's not quite as minor an issue as you
 seem to imply. (The intent is fairly obvious anyway, so we don't need to rush
 on this one but it should get fixed.)
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016  7:28 PM
+[The important part of a longer, unrelated message. - Editor]
+P.S. In looking at AI12-0032-1, I see that AI12-0176-1 is unnecessary, as
+AI12-0032-1 clearly says "specific tagged type" in 6.1.1(26.4/4), both in the
+wording and the !corrigendum (and in the actual Corrigendum document).
+Apparently, the editor botched the consolidated RM again. Self-directed grumble.

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent