CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0292-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0292-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0292-1.txt	2018/10/12 03:06:45	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0292-1.txt	2018/10/13 00:24:09	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-!standard 5.5.3(9/5)                             18-10-11  AI12-0292-1/01
+!standard 3.10.2(9.1/3)                             18-10-11  AI12-0292-1/01
+!standard 5.5.3(9/5) 
 !standard 5.5.3(13/5)
 !standard 8.5.4(11)        
 !standard 9.10(14)
@@ -19,6 +20,8 @@
 (3) The middle sentence of 5.5.3(9/5) is moved to be a Legality Rule.
+(4) Add a cross-reference too 3.10.2(9.1/3).
 Various minor issues, mostly caused about other Amendment AIs, are repaired.
@@ -44,12 +47,21 @@
      P (Some_Proc'access); -- Illegal (ambiguous).
+(4) The first forward reference in a subclause should have a cross-reference like
+   "(see blah)". That's missing for conditional_expressions in 3.10.2(9.1/3).
+    There's a cross-reference in 3.10.2(32.2/3), but that's several pages late.
 (See Wording.)
+Modify 3.10.2(9.1/3):
+The accessibility level of a conditional_expression {(see 4.5.7)} is the 
+accessibility level of the evaluated dependent_expression.
 Modify 5.5.3(9/5): [From AI12-0189-1]
 The name or prefix given in an iterator_procedure_call shall resolve to denote
@@ -85,6 +97,10 @@
 meaning confusing for the reader. And we also want the rules to work similarly
 to the way explicit code would work.
+(4) Cross-references aren't strictly necessary for users of the HTML versions
+of the documents (the syntax itself cross-references automatically), but
+they very helpful to readers of the printed versions.
 No changes needed.
@@ -142,7 +158,51 @@
+!topic Definition of the term object
+!reference 3.3(2)
+!from Grein 18-09-02
+According to 1.3(1/2), terms defined in the standard are indicated by italic
+Currently object and view of an object are defined in 3.1(7.1/3).
+Object also appears in 3.2(1).
+However, the list proper of all things that are objects is 3.3(2..12). So the
+term object should be in italics in 3.3(2).
+I guess there are more places where some terms should be italicized but 
+aren't. It's not worth the time to search the RM for such occurrences. But
+if one happens to meet such a place, the omission should be corrected.
 From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 11:26 PM
+As you note, the formal definition of the term "object" is given in 3.1. We 
+try not to have more than one definition for a single term italicized in the
+Standard (not always followed, as you note). Italicizing "object" in 3.3 
+would require removing those from 3.2 and 3.1 (which would be especially 
+annoying in 3.1, which is really defining "view of an object").
+A standard that followed ISO rules would have all of the definitions in 1.3. 
+That would of course make the definitions less, rather than more, useful -- 
+the definitions would be have to be very generic with the details in the body
+of the Standard. So, by Standard drafting rules, the less useful a definition
+is, the more appropriate it is. :-) This is also the root of why we want only
+a single term in italics; this is the place we would get the wording for such
+a clause if we ever were forced to create it.
+The index points at 3.3(2), so actual humans (as opposed to ISO-types) will 
+look there first. (If you don't use the index, particularly in the HTML 
+version with its direct links to the appropriate text, that's more on you 
+than on the Standard.)
+For all of these reasons, I think this is insufficiently broken to change. 
+Making changes always has a risk of introducing new problems.
+From: Randy Brukardt
 Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018  11:00 PM
 Having just finished added AI12-0119-1, I was checking AARM notes in 9.10 when
@@ -697,6 +757,24 @@
 ...which seems like a better justification for the change than the way I 
 described it.
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018  7:26 PM
+[Excrepted from the thread filed in AI12-0236-1 - Editor.]
+>Add after 3.10.2(9.1/3):
+>    The accessibility level of a declare_expression is
+>    the accessibility level of the *body*_expression.
+The first forward reference in a subclause should always have a 
+cross-reference "(see 6.9)". You could complain that the conditional 
+expression rule preceding this one doesn't do that -- but that one's wrong,
+and two wrongs don't make a right. :-) I've added a correction for that 
+wrong to the "clean-up" AI.

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent