CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0398-1.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0398-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0398-1.txt	2020/10/22 23:58:59	1.3
+++ ai12s/ai12-0398-1.txt	2020/10/29 21:31:54	1.4
@@ -13,8 +13,7 @@
 !summary
 
 Aspect_Specifications are added to extended return object declarations, 
-discriminant specifications, enumeration literals, and entry index
-specifications.
+discriminant specifications, and entry index specifications.
 
 !problem
 
@@ -28,8 +27,8 @@
 However, a few kinds of declaration do not allow aspect specification, and at 
 least some of those have plausible uses of implementation-defined aspects. We 
 should allow aspect specifications on all declarations where that does not 
-cause syntax or semantic problems and a directly enclosing entity does not 
-provide a preferred alternative.
+cause syntax or semantic problems and where a directly enclosing entity does 
+not provide a preferred alternative.
 
 !proposal
 
@@ -69,8 +68,8 @@
 !discussion
 
 AARM 13.1(4.b/5) has a list of all declarations and whether or not they allow
-aspect specifications. Looking at each declaration that does not allow an
-aspect specification:
+aspect specifications. Most declarations already allow aspect specifications.
+Looking at each declaration that does not allow an aspect specification:
 
 incomplete_type_declaration - NO:
 
@@ -227,6 +226,44 @@
 cannot be changed. Additionally, the name is optional, so Unreferenced is not
 necessary on choice parameters (if you don't need the name, just omit it 
 completely).
+
+!corrigendum 3.7(5/2)
+
+@drepl
+@xindent<@fa<discriminant_specification>@fa<@ ::=@ >@hr
+@ @ @ @fa<defining_identifier_list>@ :@ [@fa<null_exclusion>]@ @fa<subtype_mark>@ [:=@ @fa<default_expression>]@hr
+@ |@ @fa<defining_identifier_list>@ :@ @fa<access_definition>@ [:=@ @fa<default_expression>]>
+@dby
+@xindent<@fa<discriminant_specification>@fa<@ ::=@ >@hr
+@ @ @ @fa<defining_identifier_list>@ :@ [@fa<null_exclusion>]@ @fa<subtype_mark>@ [:=@ @fa<default_expression>]@ [@fa<aspect_specification>]@hr
+@ |@ @fa<defining_identifier_list>@ :@ @fa<access_definition>@ [:=@ @fa<default_expression>]@ [@fa<aspect_specification>]>
+
+!corrigendum 6.3.1(25)
+
+@dinsa
+An implementation may declare an operator declared in a language-defined library unit to be intrinsic.
+@dinst
+@xindent<@s9<NOTES@hr
+11  Any conformance requirements between @fa<aspect_specification>s that are part 
+of a profile or @fa<known_discriminant_part> are defined by the semantics of each 
+particular aspect. In particular, there is no general requirement for 
+@fa<aspect_specification>s to match in conforming profiles or discriminant parts.>>
+
+!corrigedum 6.5(2.1/3)
+
+@drepl
+@xindent<@fa<extended_return_object_declaration>@fa<@ ::=@ >@hr
+@ @ @ @ @fa<defining_identifier>@ :@ [@b<aliased>][@b<constant>]@ @fa<return_subtype_indication>@ [:=@ @fa<expression>]>
+@dby
+@xindent<@fa<extended_return_object_declaration>@fa<@ ::=@ >@hr
+@ @ @ @ @fa<defining_identifier>@ :@ [@b<aliased>][@b<constant>]@ @fa<return_subtype_indication>@ [:=@ @fa<expression>]@ [@fa<aspect_specification>]>
+
+!corrigendum 9.5.2(8)
+
+@drepl
+@xindent<@fa<entry_index_specification>@fa<@ ::=@ >@b<for>@ @fa<defining_identifier>@ @b<in>@ @fa<discrete_subtype_definition>>
+@dby
+@xindent<@fa<entry_index_specification>@fa<@ ::=@ >@b<for>@ @fa<defining_identifier>@ @b<in>@ @fa<discrete_subtype_definition>@ [@fa<aspect_specification>]>
 
 !ASIS
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent