CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0018-1.txt
--- ai22s/ai22-0018-1.txt 2021/11/16 06:06:19 1.2
+++ ai22s/ai22-0018-1.txt 2021/11/19 07:42:35 1.3
@@ -1,10 +1,11 @@
-!standard 4.3.5(24/5) 21-11-16 AI22-0018-1/02
+!standard 4.3.5(24/5) 21-11-18 AI22-0018-1/03
!standard 4.3.5(26/5)
!standard 4.3.5(38/5)
!standard 4.3.5(39/5)
!standard 4.9(8.1/5)
!standard 13.1(0.1/3)
!class binding interpretation 21-11-12
+!status ARG Approved 13-0-0 21-11-18
!status work item 21-11-12
!status received 21-11-12
!priority Low
@@ -18,10 +19,10 @@
!question
(1) We decided in AI12-0396-1 that all aspects are either representation
-or operational aspects. However, not all aspects (for instance,
-Preelaborable_Initialization) do not identify which class they are. That
-makes it hard to determine whether the rules are properly specified. Should
-this be fixed? (Yes.)
+or operational aspects. However, not all aspects identify which class they
+are, for instance, Preelaborable_Initialization does not. That makes it
+hard to determine whether the rules are properly specified. Should this be
+fixed? (Yes.)
(2) In 4.3.5(24/5), we mention every kind of aggregate other than a named
aggregate with an iterator_specification without key_expressions. We intend
@@ -97,10 +98,10 @@
Modify 4.3.5(39/5):
-* for a named_container_aggregate where every iterated_element_association
- contains a loop_parameter_specification {(including the case where there
- are no iterated_element_associations)}, the total number of
- elements specified by all of the container_element_associations;
+* for a named_container_aggregate where {each}[every]
+ iterated_element_association{, if any,} contains a
+ loop_parameter_specification, the total number of elements specified by all
+ of the container_element_associations;
(4)
@@ -243,7 +244,7 @@
****************************************************************
-From: Randy Brukardt [privately]
+From: Randy Brukardt
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 12:00 AM
I noticed today a problem with the solution for the third question of
@@ -255,5 +256,16 @@
hopefully).
Apologies for any inconvenience.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2021 7:51 AM
+
+Or you could replace:
+ ... the number of key_expressions;
+
+with
+ ... the total number of elements specified by all of the key_choices;
****************************************************************
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent