CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0001-1.txt
--- ai22s/ai22-0001-1.txt 2021/11/13 07:58:55 1.1
+++ ai22s/ai22-0001-1.txt 2021/11/19 07:42:35 1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 3.9(21) 21-11-11 AI22-0001-1/01
+!standard 3.9(21) 21-11-18 AI22-0001-1/02
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
!class presentation 21-11-11
+!status ARG Approved 13-0-0 21-11-18
!status work item 21-11-11
!status received 21-07-14
@@ -38,7 +39,7 @@
type. Is "single" missing here? (Yes.)
(4) 13.1.1(18.8/5) is a redundant list of all of the nonoverridable aspects.
-User-defined literal aspects are nonoveridable but not in this list. Should
+User-defined literal aspects are nonoverridable but not in this list. Should
they be added? (No, the list should be eliminated.)
(5) Between A.15 and A.17, some text has a hyphen in "implementation-defined"
@@ -163,18 +164,18 @@
aspects to it until someone stumble upon it and notices that something is
missing. We don't need this text, each such aspect already explicitly says
that it is nonoverridable where it is defined. Therefore, we suggest deleting
-it; there is a boilerplate for saying that an aspect is nonoveridable (it
+it; there is a boilerplate for saying that an aspect is nonoverridable (it
always includes a reference to 13.1.1) and hopefully when that gets copied
the index entry will come along with it. At least that is more likely than
a list a long ways away getting updated.
-(5) "implementation defined" is hyphened when used as an adjective, and not
-when used as a noun. Thus, we have "Foobar is implementation defined" and
-"Glarch has an implementation-defined" version. We fix uses that hyphenate
+(5) "implementation defined" is hyphened when used as a modifier, and not
+when used stand alone. (That goes for many other phrases as well, such as
+"stand alone".) Thus, we have "Foobar is implementation defined" and "Glarch
+has an implementation-defined version". We fix uses that hyphenate incorrectly.
Note that we leave the hyphen in declarations (it appears in italics), as
-a space in a declaration would make it syntactally incorrect.
+a space in a declaration would make it syntactically incorrect.
(6) It appears that 3.9(20) does not have a comma before "identifies T"
in order to avoid causing grouping confusion with the other commas in the
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent