CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0322-1.txt

Differences between 1.2 and version 1.3
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0322-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0322-1.txt	2019/03/08 06:20:23	1.2
+++ ai12s/ai12-0322-1.txt	2019/03/09 05:05:39	1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
-!standard 4.9(15)                                  19-03-08  AI12-0322-1/02
+!standard 4.9(15)                                  19-03-09  AI12-0322-1/03
+!standard 5.2.1(4/5)
 !standard 5.2.1(5/5)
 !class Amendment 19-03-07
 !status work item 19-03-07
@@ -38,6 +39,15 @@
   formally given in 3.3[; the nominal subtype follows from the equivalence 
   given below in Static Semantics]. 
 
+Modify 5.2.1(4/5):
+
+  A target_name shall [only] appear {only} in the expression of an 
+  assignment_statement.
+
+  [Editor's note: Bob suggested this small rewording. Since the original AI
+  is WG9-approved, the change has to go in *some* AI, and this one was handy
+  and relevant.]
+
 Replace 5.2.1 (5/5) with:
 
 Dynamic Semantics
@@ -667,7 +677,7 @@
 
 ***************************************************************
 
-From: Tucker Taft
+From: Randy Brukardt
 Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019  12:04 AM
 
 ...
@@ -739,6 +749,36 @@
 
 Well, I wrote the note when I created the AI a few hours ago. We can decide on 
 Monday what to do with it.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Friday, March 8, 2019  8:18 AM
+
+> ...
+> 
+>> Erroneous is erroneous!
+> 
+> As I show above, not necessarily. :-) Maybe not a significant 
+> difference, but the ordering in Janus/Ada has definitely helped 
+> debugging by preventing this sort of erroneousness.
+
+All good points.
+ 
+>>> Although really that a problem
+>>> with assignment statements as a whole -- they truly need such a note. 
+>>> (A cross-reference to 3.7.2(4) would be a big help, as it seems 
+>>> impossible to find that rule when it comes up in discussion. I would
+>>> *never* have looked in 3.7.2, as the title of the clause says that 
+>>> it defines some attributes.)
+>> 
+>> I could agree that assignment statements need such a note, but I 
+>> don't think a target_name makes things worse.
+> 
+> Well, I wrote the note when I created the AI a few hours ago. We can 
+> decide on Monday what to do with it.
+
+Sounds good.
 
 ***************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent