CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0207-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0207-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0207-1.txt	2016/12/16 04:37:46	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0207-1.txt	2016/12/19 23:43:09	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 6.3.1(13.1/3)                                    16-12-15  AI12-0207-1/01
+!standard 6.3.1(13.1/3)                                    16-12-19  AI12-0207-1/02
 !class binding interpretation 16-12-15
 !status work item 16-12-15
 !status received 16-09-19
@@ -11,9 +11,9 @@
 The convention of an anonymous access-to-subprogram type in the
 profile of a protected operation is Ada.
 
-The convention of an anonymous access type used in a component
+The convention of an anonymous access type of a component
 of an array or record type is the convention of the array or record
-type. The convention of an anonymous access type used in a
+type. The convention of an anonymous access type of a
 stand-alone object declaration is the convention of the stand-alone
 object.
 
@@ -41,11 +41,11 @@
 
 (2) 6.3.1(2/1) says that the default convention of any entity is Ada,
 unless the Standard says otherwise. Therefore, the convention of an
-anonymous access-to-subprogram type used as a component is always Ada.
+anonymous access-to-subprogram type of a component is always Ada.
 
 If such a component is in a record type that is specified to have
 convention C, that doesn't make any sense. Should anonymous
-access-to-subprogram type take their convention from the enclosing
+access-to-subprogram types take their convention from the enclosing
 record type? (Yes.)
 
 !recommendation
@@ -89,11 +89,13 @@
 L. If convention L is specified for an object which has an anonymous access
 type, the convention of the anonymous access type is L. 
 
+AARM Ramification: This applies to both anonymous access-to-object and 
+anonymous access-to-subprogram types.
 
 !discussion
 
-(1) We want an access-to-subprogram to only be protected if it includes the
-keyword protected. If it doesn't, it should inherit the convention from
+(1) We want an access-to-subprogram type to only be protected if it includes
+the keyword protected. If it doesn't, it should inherit the convention from
 the containing operation. But it shouldn't inherit that convention if it
 is protected, else the usual case of passing an Ada subprogram wouldn't
 be possible for protected operations and entries.
@@ -296,5 +298,32 @@
 non-constructive comments. ;-)
 
 [Editor's note: This was followed by version /01 of the AI.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016  4:13 AM
+
+> Following is my draft of this AI. Constructive comments welcome. 
+> (Forget the non-constructive comments. ;-)
+
+Looks good!
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Erhard Ploedereder
+Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016  5:48 PM
+
+Makes sense.
+
+Nit: "type used in a component" (in the summary) is very colloquial.
+"used in" -> "of"
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016  5:40 PM
+
+OK. Fixed this and a couple of other typos in the AI.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent