!standard 03.10 (14) 99-10-07 AI95-00012/04 !class binding interpretation 95-06-25 !status Corrigendum 2000 99-05-24 !status WG9 approved (8-0-0) 97-07-04 !status ARG Approved 10-0-0 96-10-07 !status work item 95-06-25 !status received 95-06-25 !priority Low !difficulty Easy !qualifier Error !subject The first subtype of a type defined by an access[_type]_definition !summary The second sentence of 3.10(14) applies to all access-to-object types, including those defined by access_definitions. !question 3.10(14) says: All subtypes of an access-to-subprogram type are constrained. The first subtype of a type defined by an access_type_definition or an access_to_object_definition is unconstrained if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated type; otherwise it is constrained. However, access_type_definition includes access_to_object_definition. What is the intent? !recommendation (See wording.) !wording Replace "access_type_definition" with "access_definition": 14 All subtypes of an access-to-subprogram type are constrained. The first subtype of a type defined by an access_definition or an access_to_ object_definition is unconstrained if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated type; otherwise it is constrained. !discussion The notion of designated subtype doesn't make sense for access-to-subprograms. The intent is that this rule should apply to all access-to-object types. Apparently, access_type_definition is a "typo". Another typo was noted in this paragraph. The paragraph says "...if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated type...", but this clearly should say "...discriminated {sub}type...". !corrigendum 3.10(14) @drepl All subtypes of an access-to-subprogram type are constrained. The first subtype of a type defined by an @fa or an @fa is unconstrained if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated type; otherwise it is constrained. @dby All subtypes of an access-to-subprogram type are constrained. The first subtype of a type defined by an @fa or an @fa is unconstrained if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated subtype; otherwise it is constrained. !ACATS test This change is not testable. This is a wording correction with no real language rule change. The paragraph is just covering general information. !appendix !section 3.10(14) !subject The first subtype of a type defined by an access[_type]_definition !reference RM95-3.10(14);5.95 !from Pascal Leroy !reference as: 95-5072.a Pascal Leroy 95-1-25>> !discussion The phrase access_type_definition in the second line of that paragraph should be replaced by access_definition: the notion of designated subtype doesn't make sense for access-to-subprograms. _____________________________________________________________________ Pascal Leroy +33.1.30.12.09.68 pleroy@rational.com +33.1.30.12.09.66 FAX **************************************************************** From: Tucker Taft Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 1999 Both the original and replacement paragraph say: "... if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated type" That makes no sense. The replacement paragraph should say: "... if the designated subtype is an unconstrained array or discriminated subtype" ****************************************************************