CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0070-1.html

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ai22s/ai22-0070-1.html

--- ai22s/ai22-0070-1.html	2023/03/24 08:00:50	1.1
+++ ai22s/ai22-0070-1.html	2023/04/07 06:37:00	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-<html><head><meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type"><title>AI22-0070-1/01</title>
+<html><head><meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="content-type"><title>AI22-0070-1/02</title>
 <style type="text/css">
 table td,table th{padding:0}
 BODY.body{background-color:#ffffff; max-width:468pt; padding:72pt 72pt 72pt 72pt}
@@ -16,24 +16,23 @@
 </head><body class="body"><p class="l3h">AI22-0070-1</p>
 <p class="head">!standard 4.3.3(32/6) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;
-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;23-03-23 &nbsp;AI22-0070-1/01</p>
+&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;23-04-03 &nbsp;AI22-0070-1/02</p>
 <p class="head">!class presentation 23-03-23</p>
+<p class="head">!status Corrigendum 1-2022 &nbsp;23-03-30</p>
+<p class="head">!status ARG Approved 12-0-0 &nbsp;23-03-30</p>
 <p class="head">!status work item 23-03-23</p>
 <p class="head">!status received 23-03-23</p>
 <p class="head">!priority Low</p>
 <p class="head">!difficulty Easy</p>
 <p class="head">!subject Cannot use might, might use can</p>
 <h2 class="head">!summary</h2>
-<p class="text">ISO Standard wording cannot use &quot;might&quot;, it might use
-&quot;can&quot;.</p>
+<p class="text">ISO Standard wording cannot use &quot;might&quot;, it might use &quot;can&quot;.
+&nbsp;Also, &ldquo;may&rdquo; should be used instead of &ldquo;can&rdquo; for a permission.</p>
 <h2 class="head">!issue</h2>
 <p class="text">JTC1 Directives, Part 2 says that the word &quot;might&quot; is not allowed in
-wording,</p>
-<p class="text">&quot;can&quot; (possibility) or &quot;may&quot; (permission) should be used
-instead. One of the</p>
-<p class="text">wording changes adopted right after the completion of Ada 2022 uses
-&quot;might&quot; and</p>
-<p class="text">needs to be corrected.</p>
+wording, &quot;can&quot; (possibility) or &quot;may&quot; (permission) should be used instead. One
+of the wording changes adopted right after the completion of Ada 2022 uses &quot;might&quot; and
+needs to be corrected.</p>
 <h2 class="head">!recommendation</h2>
 <p class="text">(See Summary.)</p>
 <h2 class="head">!wording</h2>
@@ -43,16 +42,21 @@
 <span class="ntrm">array_aggregate</span> that contains only
 <span class="ntrm">iterated_component_association</span>s with
 <span class="ntrm">iterator_specification</span>s, the first step of evaluating an
-<span class="ntrm">iterated_component_association</span> can be omitted if the implementation can
+<span class="ntrm">iterated_component_association</span>
+<span class="ins">{may}</span><span class="del">[can]</span> be omitted if the implementation can
 determine the number of values by some other means. [Redundant: Such &quot;other means&quot;
 <span class="ins">{can}</span><span class="del">[might]</span> include making use of an applicable
 index constraint or the Length function of a suitable container type.]</p>
 <h2 class="head">!discussion</h2>
 <p class="txts">AI22-0006-1 is WG 9 approved, and thus should not be changed. Thus we need a new AI
-to correct the wording change.</p>
+to correct the wording changes.</p>
 
-<p class="text">AI22-0031-1 had a similar mistake, but that one was caught in Editorial Review just
+<p class="txts">AI22-0031-1 had a similar mistake, but that one was caught in Editorial Review just
 before sending to WG 9. So we were able to correct the AI before it was frozen.</p>
+
+<p class="text">When reviewing this AI, it was noted that the primary wording of this
+Implementation Permission used &ldquo;can&rdquo; rather than the correct &ldquo;may&rdquo;. We also
+corrected that mistake.</p>
 <h2 class="head">!corrigendum 4.3.3(32/6)</h2>
 <p class="text">@drepl</p>
 <p class="text">When evaluating @fa{iterated_component_association}s for an</p>
@@ -67,7 +71,7 @@
 <p class="text">When evaluating @fa{iterated_component_association}s for an</p>
 <p class="text">@fa{array_aggregate} that contains only @fa{iterated_component_association}s</p>
 <p class="text">with @fa{iterator_specification}s, the first step of evaluating an</p>
-<p class="text">@fa{iterated_component_association} can be omitted if the implementation can</p>
+<p class="text">@fa{iterated_component_association} may be omitted if the implementation can</p>
 <p class="text">determine the maximum number of values by some other means.</p>
 <p class="text">Such &quot;other means&quot; can include making use of an applicable index
 constraint</p>

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent