CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0406-1.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ai12s/ai12-0406-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0406-1.txt	2020/12/17 04:15:24	1.4
+++ ai12s/ai12-0406-1.txt	2021/05/30 00:35:12	1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.10.2(3/2)                                    20-12-15  AI12-0406-1/04
+!standard 3.10.2(3/2)                                    21-05-20  AI12-0406-1/05
 !standard 3.10.2(18)
 !standard 3.10.2(19/3)
 !standard 3.10.2(19.1/3)
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@
 
 Master: A master is the execution of a master construct.
 Each object and task is associated with a master. When a master is left,
-associated tasks are awaited and associated objects.
+associated tasks are awaited and associated objects are finalized.
 
 Add a glossary entry:
 
@@ -262,7 +262,8 @@
 @xinbull<a @fa<raise_expression>;>
 @xinbull<a descendant of a generic formal type;>
 @xinbull<a descendant of a type declared in a generic formal package.>
-@xindent<That is, such an accessibility level is not considered to be statically 
+@xindent<When the statically deeper relationship does not apply, the 
+accessibility level is not considered to be statically 
 deeper, nor statically shallower, than any other.>
 
 
@@ -302,5 +303,70 @@
 would fail.
 
 !appendix
+
+[From WG 9 review item #130.]
+
+The description of Master in the Glossary seems incomplete. The second 
+sentence says
+
+When a master is left, associated tasks are awaited and associated objects.
+
+The associated objects seem to have lost something.
+
+Editor's reply:
+
+This was in AI12-0406-1, and the AI is the same as the RM. However, spelunking 
+led me to the following in the minutes of the ARG meeting where AI12-0406-1 
+was approved:
+
+  Steve wants the order in the glossary entry changed:
+     When a master is left, associated tasks are awaited and associated objects 
+     are finalized.
+
+So I will correct the AI and the RM to use this wording (since it was 
+obviously intended and voted on). This certainly falls under an Editorial 
+Review change, since it is a case of the editor screwing up and not following
+directions very well.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+[From WG 9 review item #44.]
+
+The paragraph 3.10.2(19.6/5) starts with "That is, ...". This seems a bit late.
+Better might be to incorporate this statement as part of 19/5. Hence:
+
+    (19/5): The statically deeper relationship does not apply to the 
+    accessibility level of the following, in the sense that the accessibility
+    level of each of these is not considered to be statically deeper, nor 
+    statically shallower, than any other level:
+
+And then we would simply delete paragraph (19.6/5).
+
+****************************************************************
+
+[Editor's reply to the above:]
+
+Humm. I don't like "in the sense"; it seems out of place and turns the lead-in 
+into a run-on sentence. 19.6/5 strikes me as a additional clarification that 
+could have been left out altogether, but if we have it, it seems to have to be
+a separate statement. I do agree that "that is" doesn't work. Perhaps we
+should be more explicit, replacing 19.6/5 with:
+
+  "When the statically deeper relationship does not apply, the accessibility 
+   level is not considered to be statically deeper, nor statically shallower,
+   than any other level."
+
+Alternatively, we could replace the lead-in by several sentences:
+
+   The statically deeper relationship does not apply to the accessibility 
+   level of some entities. Such an accessibility level is not considered 
+   to be statically deeper, nor statically shallower, than any other level.
+   The statically deeper relationship does not apply to the following 
+   entities:
+
+Or something like that. This latter seems more wordy without a ton of gain, 
+so I'm using the simpler change for now. Note that this will be processed as
+an Editorial Review change against AI12-0406-1, so if you want some other 
+change, you need to tell me ASAP.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent