CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0418-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0418-1.txt	2021/01/15 04:27:50	1.4
+++ ai12s/ai12-0418-1.txt	2021/01/23 05:57:34	1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 4.3.1(17.2/5)                             21-01-14  AI12-0418-1/04
+!standard 4.3.1(17.3/5)                             21-01-20  AI12-0418-1/05
 !standard 4.3.3(10)
 !standard 4.3.5(76/5)
 !standard 4.5.2(3.1/4)
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
 !standard 12.7(4.5/3)
 !class binding interpretation 20-12-14
 !status Amendment 1-2012 20-12-14
+!status ARG Approved 15-0-0  21-01-20
 !status work item 20-12-14
 !status received 20-12-14
 !priority Low
@@ -38,7 +39,7 @@
 (3) 5.5.2(10.2/5) uses commas oddly, and is hard to read because of its
 size. Should the comma use be improved, and the paragraph split? (Yes.)
 
-(4) In 4.3.1(17.2/5), the parenthesized (box) is weird. Other similar rules
+(4) In 4.3.1(17.3/5), the parenthesized (box) is weird. Other similar rules
 either do not include box at all (4.3.5(26/5), 12.7(4.5/3)) or include box 
 in the narrative text (4.3.4(11/5)), or even only use "box" but not <> 
 (12.6(10)). Should this be reworded? (Yes.)
@@ -75,7 +76,7 @@
 on an entry call forever). Should this be made more clearly examples? (Yes.)
 
 (14) 6.1.1(3/3) and 6.1.1(5/3) would be clearer if they said that they only
-apply to dispatching operations. This redundant with the Legality Rules of
+apply to dispatching operations. This is redundant with the Legality Rules of
 13.1.1, so it does not change anything. Do this? (Yes.)
 
 !recommendation
@@ -89,13 +90,6 @@
 
 (4) Move box in front of "compound delimiter".
 
-[=== Editor's question: Argubly, 4.3.5(26/5) should be reworded to 
-include "box" somewhere, so that at least all of the rules in the 
-aggregate clauses are consistent. Or possibly make all three of 
-4.3.1(17.2/5), 4.3.4(11/5), and 4.3.5(26/5) use consistent wording
--- 2x rules. As that seemed to be a lot of churn,
-and the wording to chose is not obvious, I've left that decision open.===]
-
 (5) Replace "must" with "shall also", and delete "as well".
 
 (6) Remove the phrase "where an array_aggregate is permitted" and replace
@@ -125,9 +119,9 @@
 even though they have not yet been approved, in order that that draft be as
 accurate as possible.]
 
-Modify 4.3.1(17.2/5):
+Modify 4.3.1(17.3/5):
 
- * use the {box} compound delimiter <> rather than an expression;
+ * use the {box} compound delimiter <> [(box)] rather than an expression;
 
 Modify 4.3.3(10):
 
@@ -231,7 +225,7 @@
 Modify 6.1.1(8/3):
 
 For an attribute_reference with attribute_designator Old, if the attribute
-reference has an expected type (or class of types) or shall resolve to a given
+reference has an expected type {(or class of types)} or shall resolve to a given
 type, the same applies to the prefix; otherwise, the prefix shall be resolved 
 independently of context.
 
@@ -283,7 +277,7 @@
 
 Modify 12.7(4.5/3):
 
-f a formal_package_association for a formal type T of the template is given
+If a formal_package_association for a formal type T of the template is given
 by <>, then the formal_package_association for any other 
 generic_formal_parameter_declaration of the template that mentions T directly
 or indirectly {shall also}[must] be given by <>[ as well].

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent