CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0213-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0213-1.txt	2019/01/11 01:27:49	1.3
+++ ai12s/ai12-0213-1.txt	2019/01/11 08:27:40	1.4
@@ -321,3 +321,70 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Gary Dismukes
+Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019  7:33 PM
+
+> More significantly, I think we need an analogous rule for the 
+> record_representation_terminator case.
+
+Agreed.
+
+> 
+> And we should probably follow the example of existing similar wording 
+> in the RM.
+> 
+> We've got
+>    If an entry_identifier appears at the end of an accept_statement, it
+>    shall repeat the entry_direct_name.
+> 
+> ...
+
+So it should be something like:
+
+  If a \record_\identifier appears at the end of a record_definition, it shall
+  repeat the defining_identifier of the enclosing full_type_declaration.
+
+(I think we want to use full_type_declaration rather than type_declaration, 
+because the former has the defining_identifier.)
+
+By the way, I don't see the benefit of adding two new nonterminals in this 
+proposal (record_terminator and record_representation_terminator).
+
+Why not just have:
+
+   record_definition ::=                                                        
+      record                                                                    
+         component_list                                                         
+      end record [\record_\identifier]
+      | null record                                                             
+                                                                                
+and similarly for the record_representation_clause case?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019  7:53 PM
+
+> Why not just have:
+> 
+>     record_definition ::=
+>        record
+>           component_list
+>        end record [\record_\identifier]
+>        | null record
+>                                                                                  
+> and similarly for the record_representation_clause case?
+
+Agreed. That's how it is handled in all the other cases (if you search the
+syntax summary page for "end [", there are 10 such occurrences).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019  8:27 PM
+
+You guys are too late, see my message sent 7:09 PM where I pointed that out 
+and fixed it.
+
+****************************************************************
+