CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0191-1.txt

Differences between 1.10 and version 1.11
Log of other versions for file 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