CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0320-1.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0320-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0320-1.txt	2019/03/07 00:36:15	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0320-1.txt	2019/03/08 06:57:49	1.2
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
 !standard E.2.1(7/4)                                    19-03-06  AI12-0320-1/01
 !standard E.2.1(7.1/4)
 !class binding interpretation 19-03-06
+!status Amendment 1-2012 19-03-06
 !status work item 19-03-06
 !status received 19-03-05
 !priority Low
@@ -57,7 +58,36 @@
 
 !discussion
 
+!corrigendum E.2.1(7/4)
 
+@drepl
+@xbullet<it shall not contain a library-level declaration of an access type that
+designates a class-wide type, nor a type with a part that is of a task type or
+protected type with @fa<entry_declaration>s;>
+@dby
+@xbullet<it shall not contain a library-level declaration:>
+
+!corrigendum E.2.1(7.1/4)
+
+@drepl
+@xbullet<it shall not contain a library-level declaration that contains a name
+that denotes a type declared within a declared-pure package, if that type has
+a part that is of an access type; for the purposes of this rule, the parts
+considered include those of the full views of any private types or private
+extensions.>
+@dby
+@xinbull<of an access type that designates a class-wide type;>
+
+@xinbull<of a type with a part that is of a task type;>
+
+@xinbull<of a type with a part that is of a protected type with @fa<entry_declaration>s; nor>
+
+@xinbull<that contains a name
+that denotes a type declared within a declared-pure package, if that type has
+a part that is of an access type; for the purposes of this rule, the parts
+considered include those of the full views of any private types or private
+extensions.>
+
 !ASIS
 
 No ASIS effect.
@@ -66,5 +96,29 @@
 
 
 !appendix
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Written: Wednesday, March 06, 2019  6:45 PM
+
+Jeff's review includes:
+
+>E.2.1 (7/4) it shall not contain a library-level declaration of an access type 
+>that designates a class-wide type, nor a type with a part that is of a task 
+>type or {of a} protected type with entry_declarations;
+
+I've been removing those redundant "of a" when I can, I view it as just noise. 
+Moreover, in this case, it would make a reading of "of a task type" or "of a 
+protected type with entry_declarations" plausible (which is wrong!). If I was
+going to make any change here at all, I'd drop the "type" after "task", so it
+would read ("of a task or protected type with entry declarations".
+
+Ugh: after looking at the pre-change sentence, it's obvious that the "wrong" 
+reading is actually the one intended. But then just adding "of a" doesn't 
+seem to be enough -- it makes the intended wording plausible, but does little 
+to make it clear. (The original wording had a comma which made it a lot 
+clearer as to the intended grouping.)
+
+Since this wording is from the Corrigendum, we have to put it on the agenda 
+in any case.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent