CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0011-1.txt

--- ai22s/ai22-0011-1.txt	2022/01/20 02:59:34	1.6
+++ ai22s/ai22-0011-1.txt	2022/01/21 06:02:31	1.7
@@ -451,6 +451,46 @@
 
 !appendix
 
+From: Steve Baird
+WG 9 Review issue #139 - May 14, 2021
+
+Looking more closely at value_sequences involves looking at
+iterated_element_associations. And that leads to wondering about whether
+the accessibility level is well defined for the loop parameter of such an
+iteration. Consider this expression:
+[for Loop_Param of ... => Loop_Param.Aliased_Component'Access]'Reduce
+(Function_With_Anonymous_Access_Parameter, Init_Value)
+
+When Function_With_Anonymous_Access_Parameter is called (at runtime), an
+accessibility level will need to be passed in. What rules define
+that level?
+
+Perhaps the apparently-missing accessibility level definition follows
+from some equivalence rule, but I don't see it.
+
+If there is an issue here, then (at least) two solutions come to mind.
+One approach is to make sure this case is well-defined in 3.10.2.
+Alternatively, we could require that the Value_Type and the Accum_Type
+of a reduction expression shall each not be an anonymous access type.
+
+Is there a similar issue with quantified expressions? Perhaps not
+(although it seems suspicious that 5.5.2(8.a/5) talks about "the loop
+statement", as opposed to other looping constructs).
+
+[Remainder of (off-topic) note is elided here, see AI22-0025-1 for
+it - Editor.]
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+WG 9 Review issue #139 - May 29, 2021
+
+This can't possibly be something that is going to matter to 99.99% of 
+reduction expressions, so resolving this sort of corner case can wait for a
+future Ada. (Preferably about Ada 2222. :-) Marked as deferred.
+
+****************************************************************
+
 !topic Roman numbers reduction expression example
 !reference Ada 202X Darft 29 RM 4.2.1(18/5ff), 4.5.10
 !from Christoph Grein 2021-05-27