CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt

--- ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt	2022/09/03 05:35:45	1.5
+++ ai22s/ai22-0005-1.txt	2023/04/22 06:19:56	1.6
@@ -91,3 +91,48 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Steve Baird
+Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 (privately)
+
+Are we missing something in
+
+    AARM Reason: For a function that has a parameter of T or access T, a blanket
+    rule in 13.1.1 requires the function to be a primitive operation of T, the
+    wording about the same declaration_list is redundant in that case.
+
+? Perhaps something like
+
+    AARM Reason: For a function that has a parameter of T or access T (so a blanket
+    rule in 13.1.1 requires the function to be a primitive operation of T) the
+    wording about the same declaration_list is redundant.
+
+would be better.
+
+This wording occurs twice in the AI.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Friday, April 21, 2023 (privately)
+
+How about:
+
+   AARM Reason: For a function that has a parameter of T or access T, a blanket
+   rule in 13.1.1 requires the function to be a primitive operation of T, so the
+   wording about the same declaration_list is redundant in that case.
+
+   [Editor's note: Fix both of the AARM notes in AI22-0002-1 (After
+   AARM 4.1.6(3.b/3) and  AARM 5.5.1(8.a/3)).]
+
+I suspect this is what was meant to be written. The point is that the blanket
+rule makes the wording redundant in this particular case. We have the case
+first, the mention of the blanket rule, and finally the consequence.
+
+One could imagine fully rewriting these notes to reorder the parts, but I haven't
+found anything that works better.
+
+Since AI22-0002-1 is WG 9 approved, I'll put this wording fix into AI22-0005-1
+(the AARM note AI). No ARG action is needed.
+
+****************************************************************
+