CVS difference for ai12s/ai12-0442-1.txt

--- ai12s/ai12-0442-1.txt	2022/04/29 05:48:48	1.1
+++ ai12s/ai12-0442-1.txt	2022/05/07 06:14:18	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.4(34)                                       22-04-26  AI12-0442-1/01
+!standard 3.4(34)                                       22-05-05  AI12-0442-1/02
 !standard 3.5(58)
 !standard 3.5.5(12)
 !standard 3.5.9(22)
@@ -14,8 +14,6 @@
 !standard 5.1(18/5)
 !standard 5.2.1(8/5)
 !standard 5.5(14)
-!standard 5.5.3(21/5)
-!standard 5.5.3(27/5)
 !standard 6.1.1(43/3)
 !standard 6.1.2(18/5)
 !standard 7.3(18)
@@ -69,6 +67,8 @@
 !standard E.4.2(12)
 !standard H.5(7/2)
 !class presentation 22-04-25
+!status Amendment 1-2012 22-05-05
+!status ARG Approved 14-0-0  22-05-05
 !status work item 22-04-25
 !status received 22-02-18
 !priority Critical
@@ -80,7 +80,7 @@
 
 !question
 
-ISO comment #16 includes a mention of the fact that the drafing rules do not
+ISO comment #16 includes a mention of the fact that the drafting rules do not
 allow any requirements, recommendations, or permissions in notes. We of course
 follow the spirit of that rule, but we do not follow the letter, which does
 not allow any phrasing that might be mistook for one of these things.
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
     NOTE 2   For a subtype of a scalar type, the result delivered by the
     attributes Succ, Pred, and Value {can be outside}[might not belong to]
     the subtype; similarly, the actual parameters of the attributes Succ,
-    Pred, and Image {is also allowed to be outside}[need not belong to]
+    Pred, and Image {are also allowed to be outside}[need not belong to]
     the subtype.
 
 ["Might not" and "need not" are both on the ISO list (as opposed to the
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@
 Modify 3.9(27):
 
     NOTE 1   A type declared with the reserved word tagged {is}[should]
-    normally be declared in a package_specification, so that new primitive
+    normally [be] declared in a package_specification, so that new primitive
     subprograms can be declared for it.
 
 [Replace "should". This is a usage recommendation, and could have been
@@ -169,7 +169,7 @@
     NOTE 3   Notes on the example: Given the above abstract type, one
     {can}[could then] derive various (nonabstract) extensions of the type,
     representing alternative implementations of a set. One {possibility 
-    is}[might use] a bit vector, but impose an upper bound on the largest
+    is to}[might] use a bit vector, but impose an upper bound on the largest
     element representable, while another possible implementation is a hash
     table, trading off space for flexibility.
 
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@
 
     NOTE 7   An implementation {can}[may] consider two access-to-subprogram
     values to be unequal, even though they designate the same subprogram.
-    [For instance, this can happen]{This might be} because one points
+    {For instance, this can happen}[This might be] because one points
     directly to the subprogram, while the other points to a special prologue
     that performs an Elaboration_Check and then jumps to the subprogram.
     See 4.5.2.
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@
 Modify 4.8(15/3):
 
     NOTE 4   Implementations {can, if desired}[are permitted, but not 
-    required], to provide garbage collection.
+    required], [to] provide garbage collection.
 
 [Neither a permission nor a requirement should be mentioned here, just a
 statement of fact - Editor.]
@@ -267,32 +267,6 @@
 notes for recommendations to the programmer, but that is simply not allowed (and
 probably would be considered inappropriate for a Standard at all) - Editor.]
 
-Modify 5.5.3(21/5):
-
-     Specifying the Parallel_Iterator aspect to be True for a
-     callable entity indicates that the entity {is allowed to}[might] invoke
-     the loop body procedure from multiple distinct logical threads of
-     control. The Parallel_Iterator aspect for a subprogram shall
-     be statically False if the subprogram allows exit.
-
-["Might" is clearly better that "can" here, so we need a more substantial 
-rewording. - Editor.]
-
-Modify 5.5.3(27/5):
-
-    For the execution of a loop_statement with an iteration_scheme that has a
-    procedural_iterator, the procedure denoted by the name or prefix of the
-    iterator_procedure_call (the iterating procedure) is invoked, passing an
-    access value designating the loop body procedure as a parameter. The iterating
-    procedure then calls the loop body procedure zero or more times and returns,
-    whereupon the loop_statement is complete. If the parallel reserved word is
-    present, the iterating procedure {is allowed to}[might] invoke the loop body
-    procedure from multiple distinct logical threads of control. The
-    aspect_specification, if any, is elaborated prior to the invocation of
-    the iterating procedure.
-
-[See previous item. - Editor.]
-
 Modify 6.1.1(43/3):
 
     NOTE 1   A precondition is checked just before the call. If another
@@ -396,8 +370,9 @@
 Modify 9.1(21/2):
 
     NOTE 3   A task type is a limited type (see 7.5), and hence precludes
-    use of assignment_statements and predefined equality operators. If an
-    application {wants}[needs] to store and exchange task identities, it can
+    use of assignment_statements and predefined equality operators. If {a
+    programmer wants to write }an application {that stores and 
+    exchanges}[needs to store and exchange] task identities, {they}[it] can
     do so by defining an access type designating the corresponding task
     objects and by using access values for identification purposes. Assignment
     is available for such an access type as for any access type.
@@ -439,7 +414,7 @@
     Local_Time_Offset does not raise Unknown_Zone_Error, UTC time can be
     safely calculated (within the accuracy of the underlying time-base).
 
-[Replacex may, eliminate "need not" - Editor.]
+[Replace "may", eliminate "need not" - Editor.]
 
 Modify 9.7.4(13):
 
@@ -572,7 +547,7 @@
 read literally, it does, but it is in a paragraph that otherwise only talks
 about formal derived types. We therefore move it to 12.5.1(6/3) to make it
 clear that it applies to both. If we were working on a new revision rather
-that "minor" changes to an approved DIS, I would suggest moving the entirity
+than "minor" changes to an approved DIS, I would suggest moving the entirety
 of 12.5.1(6) (with the new part) after 12.5.1(4) so that the rules that apply
 to all private and derived formals appear before the ones that apply only to
 derived formals. But that seems like a bit much as an editorial change.
@@ -789,7 +764,7 @@
 
 Modify C.3.1(23/2):
 
-    NOTE 2   {For a}A protected object that has a (protected) procedure
+    NOTE 2   {For a}[A] protected object that has a (protected) procedure
     attached to an interrupt{, the correct}[ should have a] ceiling
     priority {is }at least as high as the highest processor priority at which
     that interrupt will ever be delivered.
@@ -799,9 +774,10 @@
 Modify C.7.2(31):
 
     NOTE 1   An attribute always exists (after instantiation), and has the
-    initial value. It {is possible that it will}[need not] occupy memory
-    until the first operation that potentially changes the attribute value.
-    The same holds true after Reinitialize.
+    initial value. {An implementation can avoid using}[It need not occupy]
+    memory {to store the attribute value} until the first operation that
+    [potentially] changes the attribute value. The same holds true after
+    Reinitialize.
 
 [Rewrite to replace "need not" - Editor.]
 
@@ -819,7 +795,7 @@
 Modify D.2.1(12):
 
     NOTE 2   An example of a possible implementation-defined execution
-    resource is a page of physical memory, which {must}[needs] to be loaded
+    resource is a page of physical memory, which {must}[needs to] be loaded
     with a particular page of virtual memory before a task can continue
     execution.
 
@@ -887,7 +863,8 @@
 [Replace "need not" - Editor.]
 
 [The !appendix has several further occurrences of the unallowed words that we
-are not  proposing to change at this time, and why - Editor.]
+are not proposing to change at this time, and why we think no change is
+needed - Editor.]
 
 !discussion
 
@@ -916,7 +893,7 @@
 selective in applying it to non-normative things like notes.
 
 Note that while some phrases are given meanings, other uses of the words seem
-be to be allowed by the Directives. For instance, "necessary" is used in many
+to be allowed by the Directives. For instance, "necessary" is used in many
 contexts in the Directives that are not requirements.
 
 The editor checked the Directives and examples have the same