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

--- ai12s/ai12-0292-1.txt	2018/10/13 00:24:09	1.2
+++ ai12s/ai12-0292-1.txt	2018/12/05 01:52:15	1.3
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
-!standard 3.10.2(9.1/3)                             18-10-11  AI12-0292-1/01
+!standard 3.10.2(9.1/3)                             18-11-13  AI12-0292-1/02
 !standard 5.5.3(9/5) 
 !standard 5.5.3(13/5)
 !standard 8.5.4(11)        
 !standard 9.10(14)
 !class Amendment 18-10-11
+!status Amendment 1-2012 18-11-13
+!status ARG Approved 7-0-0  18-10-21
 !status work item 18-10-11
 !status received 18-07-26
 !priority Low
@@ -20,7 +22,7 @@
 
 (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).
+(4) Add a cross-reference to 3.10.2(9.1/3).
 
 !problem
 
@@ -99,8 +101,53 @@
 
 (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.
+they are very helpful to readers of the printed versions.
 
+!corrigendum 3.10.2(9.1/3)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<The accessibility level of a @fa<conditional_expression> is the 
+accessibility level of the evaluated @i<dependent_>@fa<expression>.>
+@dby
+@xbullet<The accessibility level of a @fa<conditional_expression> (see 4.5.7) 
+is the accessibility level of the evaluated @i<dependent_>@fa<expression>.>
+
+!comment Just enough below to cause a conflict; the real changes are in the conflict file.
+!corrigendum 5.5.3(0)
+@drepl
+The @fa<name> or @fa<prefix> given in an @fa<iterator_procedure_call> shall resolve to
+denote a callable entity @i<C> that is a procedure, or an entry renamed as
+(viewed as) a procedure. The @fa<name> or @fa<prefix> shall not resolve to denote
+an abstract subprogram unless it is also a dispatching subprogram.
+When there is an @fa<iterator_actual_parameter_part>, the @fa<prefix>
+can be an @fa<implicit_dereference> of an access-to-subprogram value.
+@dby
+The @fa<name> or @fa<prefix> given in an @fa<iterator_procedure_call> shall resolve to
+denote a callable entity @i<C> that is a procedure, or an entry renamed as
+(viewed as) a procedure. When there is an @fa<iterator_actual_parameter_part>, 
+the @fa<prefix> can be an @fa<implicit_dereference> of an access-to-subprogram value.
+
+!corrigendum 8.5.4(11)        
+
+@ddel
+@xindent<@s9<14  Calls with the new @fa<name> of a renamed entry are 
+@fa<procedure_call_statement>s and are not allowed at places where the syntax
+requires an @fa<entry_call_statement> in @fa<conditional_> and 
+@fa<timed_entry_call>s, nor in an @fa<asynchronous_select>; similarly, the 
+Count attribute is not available for the new @fa<name>.>>
+
+!corrigendum 9.10(14)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<Both actions occur as part of protected actions on the same protected 
+object, and at most one of the actions is part of a call on a protected 
+function of the protected object.>
+@dby
+@xbullet<Both actions occur as part of protected actions on the same protected 
+object, and at least one of the actions is part of a call on an exclusive 
+protected operation of the protected object.>
+
+
 !ASIS
 
 No changes needed.
@@ -110,14 +157,15 @@
 (1) As this is not normative anyway, no tests are needed.
 
 (2) Any Exclusive_Functions = True C-Test will implicitly test correct
-    implementation of this rule, but
-    it's impractical to construct a test that would fail even when the 
-    implementation is wrong (as timing and ordering would be critical).
-    So we conclude no test is needed.
+    implementation of this rule, but it's impractical to construct a test 
+    that would fail even when the implementation is wrong (as timing 
+    and ordering would be critical). So we conclude no test is needed.
 
 (3) A B-test like the example in the !problem could be constructed, but that
     would have low value.
 
+(4) As this is purely a readability change, no tests are neded.
+
 !appendix
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
@@ -202,6 +250,7 @@
 Making changes always has a risk of introducing new problems.
 
 ****************************************************************
+
 From: Randy Brukardt
 Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018  11:00 PM