CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0204-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0204-1.txt	2016/10/07 02:11:18	1.2
+++ ai12s/ai12-0204-1.txt	2016/11/10 01:48:00	1.3
@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
-!standard 8.5.4(5.2/2)                                    16-10-06  AI12-0204-1/01
+!standard 8.5.4(5.2/2)                                    16-11-09  AI12-0204-1/02
 !standard 12.6(8.3/2)
 !standard 4.1.3(13.1/2)
 !standard 4.1.6(9/5)
 !class binding interpretation 16-10-06
+!status Amendment 1-2012 16-11-09
+!status ARG Approved 8-0-0  16-10-08
 !status work item 16-10-06
 !status received 16-10-01
 !priority Medium
@@ -12,12 +14,12 @@
 !summary
 
 The prefix of a prefixed view that is renamed or passed as a formal subprogram
-must be able to be renamed as an object.
+must be renameble as an object.
 
 The prefix of a prefixed view that has an implicit 'Access must be legal for
 'Access.
 
-A generalized_reference is illegal if the equivalent prefixed view is illegal.
+A generalized_indexing is illegal if the equivalent prefixed view is illegal.
 
 !question
 
@@ -101,17 +103,17 @@
 
    Language Design Principle
 
-   If we say that some construct C1 is equivalent to some other construct C2, then
-   there should be a language rule that says that C1 is illegal if C2 is illegal.
-   We don't want to infer Legality Rules from Static Semantics and especially
-   Dynamic Semantics rules.
+   When the Standard says that some construct C1 has equivalent dynamic 
+   semantics to some other construct C2, there should be a language rule that
+   says that C1 is illegal if C2 is illegal.
 
+   Reason: We don't want to infer Legality Rules from Dynamic Semantics rules.
+
 Modify 4.1.3(13.1/2):
 
-   For a subprogram whose first parameter is an access parameter, the
-   prefix of any prefixed view shall [denote an aliased view of an
-   object]{be a prefix which could legally be the prefix of an Access
-   attribute reference}.
+   For {a prefixed view of} a subprogram whose first parameter is an access
+   parameter, the prefix [of any prefixed view] shall [denote an aliased view
+   of an object]{be legal as the prefix of an Access attribute reference}.
 
 Add after 4.1.6(9/5):
 
@@ -169,11 +171,39 @@
 be illegal (specifically, discriminant-dependent components).
 
 We also noticed that 4.1.6 doesn't have the needed "pass-through" rule; if
-the equivalent prefixed view would be illegal, then the generalized reference
-should be illegal. (This is the actual language bug, since the prefixed
+the equivalent prefixed view would be illegal, then the generalized indexing
+should be illegal. (This is an actual language bug, since the prefixed
 view could have been illegal even without the other changes, and we should
 not be inferring legality from Dynamic Semantics rules -- which is where the
-equivalence is defined.]
+equivalence is defined.)
+
+!corrigendum 4.1.3(13.1/2)
+
+@drepl
+For a subprogram whose first parameter is an access parameter, the prefix of
+any prefixed view shall denote an aliased view of an object.
+@dby
+For a prefixed view of a subprogram whose first parameter is an access parameter,
+the prefix shall be legal as the prefix of an Access attribute reference.
+
+!corrigendum 4.1.6(9/5)
+
+@dinsa
+In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), this
+rule applies also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
+@dinst
+A @fa<generalized_indexing> is illegal if the equivalent prefixed view (see below)
+is illegal.
+
+!corrigendum 8.5.4(5.2/2)
+
+@dinsa
+The @i<callable_entity_>@fa<name> of a renaming-as-body shall not denote an
+abstract subprogram. 
+@dinst
+
+!corrigendum 12.6(8.3/2)
+
 
 !ASIS
 
@@ -181,6 +211,7 @@
 
 !ACATS test
 
+ACATS B-Tests are needed to check these new Legality Rules.
 
 !appendix