CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0307-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0307-1.txt	2019/02/07 06:31:30	1.2
+++ ai12s/ai12-0307-1.txt	2019/02/12 02:21:36	1.3
@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
-!standard 4.3(3/5)                                    19-02-04  AI12-0307-1/01
+!standard 4.3(3/5)                                    19-02-11  AI12-0307-1/02
 !reference AI12-0212-1
 !class Amendment 19-02-04
+!status Amendment 1-2012 19-02-11
+!status ARG Approved 8-0-2  19-02-11
 !status work item 19-02-04
 !status received 19-01-22
 !priority Low
@@ -87,8 +89,8 @@
 
   The expected type for an aggregate shall be a single composite type.
 
-(1) is unusual in the syntax of the aggregate determines the resolution. And
-the syntax difference in question is subtle (especially in some fonts). We
+(1) is unusual in that the syntax of the aggregate determines the resolution. 
+And the syntax difference in question is subtle (especially in some fonts). We
 would prefer that all array aggregates resolve the same way.
 
 However, all of the remaining options are incompatible. For such an 
@@ -130,6 +132,17 @@
 Ada from scratch, this is the option we would choose, since we don't want
 resolution to be "too smart". But it seems too late to be introducing 
 unnecessary incompatibilities.
+
+!corrigendum 4.3(3/2)
+
+@drepl
+The expected type for an @fa<aggregate> shall be a single array type, record
+type, or record extension.
+@dby
+The expected type for an @fa<aggregate> shall be a single array type,
+a single type with the Aggregate aspect specified, or a single
+descendant of a record type or of a record extension.
+
 
 !ASIS