CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0191-1.txt
--- ai12s/ai12-0191-1.txt 2019/02/23 02:33:34 1.10
+++ ai12s/ai12-0191-1.txt 2019/02/26 01:35:02 1.11
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.9.1(4.1/2) 19-02-23 AI12-0191-1/07
+!standard 3.9.1(4.1/2) 19-02-25 AI12-0191-1/08
!standard 7.3.2(10.1/4)
!standard 7.3.2(15/5)
!class binding interpretation 16-06-06
@@ -37,17 +37,17 @@
Add after 3.9.1(4.1/2):
- In the case where the (compile time) view of an object X is of a
- tagged type T1 or T1'Class and the (runtime) tag of X is T2'Tag,
- the components (if any) of X which are not components of T1
- (and which are not discriminants which correspond to a discriminant
- of T1) are said to not be "components of the nominal type" of the object.
- For example, if T2 is an
- undiscriminated extension of T1 which declares a component named Comp,
- then X.Comp is not a component of the nominal type of X.
- Similarly, a part (respectively, subcomponent) of an object might or might
- not be a part (respectively, subcomponent) of the nominal type of
- the object.
+ In the case where the (compile-time) view of an object X is of a
+ tagged type T1 or T1'Class and the (run-time) tag of X is T2'Tag,
+ only the components (if any) of X that are components of T1
+ (or that are discriminants which correspond to a discriminant
+ of T1) are said to be "components of the nominal type" of X.
+ Similarly, only parts (respectively, subcomponents) of T1 are parts
+ (respectively, subcomponents) of the nominal type of X.
+
+ AARM Ramification: For example, if T2 is an
+ undiscriminated extension of T1 which declares a component named Comp,
+ then X.Comp is not a component of the nominal type of X.
AARM note: For example, there is a dynamic semantics rule that
finalization of an object includes finalization of its components
@@ -1096,5 +1096,59 @@
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 5:53 PM
See attached. [This is version /07 of the AI - Editor.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 6:57 AM
+
+Looks good in general. I wonder about the new normative wording after
+3.9.1(4.1/2). The first sentence uses a double negative, and the illustrative
+example doesn't read quite like normal normative RM text, and might better be
+an AARM note. Currently you propose:
+
+append after 3.9.1(4.1/2) (i.e., at the end of the Static Semantics section):
+
+ In the case where the (compile time) view of an object X is of a
+ tagged type T1 or T1'Class and the (runtime) tag of X is T2'Tag,
+ the components (if any) of X which are not components of T1
+ (and which are not discriminants which correspond to a discriminant
+ of T1) are said to not be "components of the nominal type" of the object.
+ For example, if T2 is an
+ undiscriminated extension of T1 which declares a component named Comp,
+ then X.Comp is not a component of the nominal type of X.
+ Similarly, a part (respectively, subcomponent) of an object might or might
+ not be a part (respectively, subcomponent) of the nominal type of
+ the object.
+
+Here is a possible re-wording:
+
+ In the case where the (compile-time) view of an object X is of a
+ tagged type T1 or T1'Class and the (run-time) tag of X is T2'Tag,
+ only the components (if any) of X that are components of T1
+ (or that are discriminants which correspond to a discriminant
+ of T1) are said to be "components of the nominal type" of X.
+ Similarly, only parts (respectively, subcomponents) of T1 are parts
+ (respectively, subcomponents) of the nominal type of X.
+
+ AARM Ramification: For example, if T2 is an
+ undiscriminated extension of T1 which declares a component named Comp,
+ then X.Comp is not a component of the nominal type of X.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 1:08 PM
+
+I like it, and I agree that getting rid of the double negatives is a
+significant improvement.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 8:10 PM
+
+Sigh. OK, I've posted an update [/08 of the AI] with this wording for
+discussion tomorrow.
****************************************************************
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent