CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0405-1.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0405-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0405-1.txt	2020/12/11 22:22:26	1.4
+++ ai12s/ai12-0405-1.txt	2020/12/17 04:15:24	1.5
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-!standard 7.3.4(10/5)                                  20-12-11  AI12-0405-1/02
-!standard 7.3.4(15/5)
+!standard 6.1.2(19/5)                                  20-12-15  AI12-0405-1/03
+!standard 7.3.4(0)
 !class Amendment 20-10-21
 !status Amendment 1-2012 20-12-11
 !status ARG Approved 15-0-0  20-12-09
@@ -188,13 +188,13 @@
      The equality operation that is used in the aforementioned
      equality expressions is as described in the case of an
      individual membership test whose membership_choice is a
-     choice_simple_expression (see section 4.5.2).
+     choice_simple_expression (see 4.5.2).
 
 Proposal D:
    
-  Append after 7.3.4(23/5) [and after the text added for proposal C]"
+  Append after 7.3.4(23/5) [and before the text added for proposal C]"
 
-     Ramification:
+     AARM Ramification:
        In the case of a derived type T, when the preceding rules refer to
        "every primitive subprogram S of a type T", the referenced set of
        subprograms includes any inherited subprograms.
@@ -203,10 +203,10 @@
 
   Append after 7.3.4(23/5) [and after the text added for proposals C and D]:
 
-     The Pre (respectively Pre'Class) expression additions described
-     above are enabled or disabled depending on the Pre (respectively,
-     Pre'Class) assertion policy that is in effect at the point of declaration
-     of the subprogram S.
+     The Pre expression additions described above are enabled or disabled 
+     depending on the Pre assertion policy that is in effect at the point of
+     declaration of the subprogram S. A similar rule applies to the 
+     Pre'Class expression additions.
 
 Proposal F:
    No change.
@@ -214,7 +214,7 @@
 Proposal G:
 
    7.3.4(5/5) - add the word "specific"
-       This aspect defines the [specific] stable property functions of the
+       This aspect defines the {specific} stable property functions of the
        associated type.
 
    Add after 7.3.4(6/5):
@@ -224,11 +224,11 @@
    Delete "(including a class-wide stable property function)" from 7.3.4(10/5).
 
    7.3.4(16/5) - add the word "specific"
-      For a primitive subprogram S of a type T, the [specific] stable
+      For a primitive subprogram S of a type T, the {specific} stable
       property functions of S for type T are:
 
    7.3.4(22/5) - add the word "specific" once, but not twice:
-      ..., with one such equality included for each [specific] stable
+      ..., with one such equality included for each {specific} stable
      property function F of S ... 
 
 Proposal H:
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@
    Add at the end of the Legality Rules section of 7.3.4
 
      If a subprogram_renaming_declaration declares a primitive
-     subprogram S of a type T, then the renamed callable entity
+     subprogram of a type T, then the renamed callable entity
      shall also be a primitive subprogram of type T and the
      two primitive subprograms shall have the same specific
      stable property functions and the same class-wide stable
@@ -261,20 +261,27 @@
 
    The "(see below)" is added because this wording precedes the
    text where we define the two sets of stable property functions
-   for a given subprogram. However, if we choose subproposal A.2
-   (as opposed to A.1), then there will be a second "Legality Rules"
-   section. If we do that, then this new rule can go in that
-   section and the "(see below)" can be deleted.
+   for a given subprogram.
       
 !discussion
 
 Discussion is included in the !proposal.
 
+!corrigendum 6.1.2(0)
+
+@dinsc
+See the conflict file for the changes.
+
+!corrigendum 7.3.4(0)
+
+@dinsc
+See the conflict file for the changes.
+
+
 !ASIS
 
 No ASIS changes needed.
 
-
 !ACATS test
 
 ACATS B- and C-Tests are needed to check that the changes are properly 
@@ -765,5 +772,27 @@
 
 Could we get the best of both options with an AARM note observing that the 
 specified "F(X) = F(X)'Old" is really equivalent to "F(X) in F(X)'Old" ?
+
+****************************************************************
+
+Editor's note, December 15, 2020
+
+I replaced the wording of Proposal E:
+
+     The Pre (respectively Pre'Class) expression additions described above 
+     are enabled or disabled depending on the Pre (respectively, Pre'Class)
+     assertion policy that is in effect at the point of declaration of the
+     subprogram S.
+
+with:
+
+     The Pre expression additions described above are enabled or disabled 
+     depending on the Pre assertion policy that is in effect at the point of
+     declaration of the subprogram S. A similar rule applies to the 
+     Pre'Class expression additions.
+
+as this follows the style of similar rules and avoids any confusion about
+what is "respective". (It also sidesteps the question of whether "respectively"
+should be followed with a comma or not -- it has to be one or the other, not both.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent