CVS difference for ais/ai-00033.txt

Differences between 1.7 and version 1.8
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00033.txt

--- ais/ai-00033.txt	2000/07/15 02:29:53	1.7
+++ ais/ai-00033.txt	2000/08/01 05:39:32	1.8
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
 !summary
 
 7.3.1 describes places where additional characteristics of a type become
-revealed.  These rules apply only *immediately* within the declarative
+revealed. These rules apply only *immediately* within the declarative
 region in which the type is declared.
 
 !question
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
          -- procedure Op (X : T) is declared here, according to
          -- 7.3.1(6), because the corresponding declaration for Pt
          -- is visible at this point and the body of P is still within
-         -- the immediate scope of T.  It is somewhat strange, however,
+         -- the immediate scope of T. It is somewhat strange, however,
          -- that the subprogram does not get declared immediately
          -- within the same declarative region as T.
          -- Is this the intent?  (No.)
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@
 
 In paragraphs 7.3.1(3,4,5,6) replace wording of the form "within the
 immediate scope of the type" with "immediately within the declarative
-region in which the type is declared".  Alternatively, provide a
+region in which the type is declared". Alternatively, provide a
 prefatory paragraph that specifies that the rules apply only when
 the composite or derived type is declared within the same declarative
 region as the type from which it inherits additional operations
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
 
 !discussion
 
-The wording of 7.3.1 was inherited from the Ada 83 standard's clause 7.4.2,
+The wording of 7.3.1 was inherited from the Ada 83 standard's subsection 7.4.2,
 but by stating the rules in terms of the immediate scope of the type this
 inadvertently included all nested scopes, which was not intended.
 
@@ -102,27 +102,27 @@
 
 The wording of 7.3.1(3) would seem to imply that an "and" operator is
 implicitly declared for type Outer_Type at the beginning of the body of
-Inner, since this is within the immediate scope of Outer_Type.  However,
+Inner, since this is within the immediate scope of Outer_Type. However,
 in Ada 83, such an "and" operator was not implicitly declared -- such an
 operator could only be declared *immediately* within the declarative
 region of Outer_Type -- not in some nested Inner package.
 
-This language change was not intended.  Furthermore, the principle that
+This language change was not intended. Furthermore, the principle that
 implicit declarations of operators (or other additional characteristics)
 can only be revealed *immediately* within the declaration region of the
 outer type should be preserved, even in the case of new language
-features, such as child packages.  Therefore, 7.3.1(3,4,5,6) are changed
+features, such as child packages. Therefore, 7.3.1(3,4,5,6) are changed
 accordingly.
 
 The Ada 83 standard prefaced paragraph 7.4.2(6) by saying, "If the composite
 type is itself declared within the package that declares the private type",
-which avoided the problems introduced by 7.3.1(3,4,6).  In attempting to be
+which avoided the problems introduced by 7.3.1(3,4,6). In attempting to be
 more general and include derived types as well as composite types, plus
 handle the case of child units (which are not "within" their parent
 package but are "within the declarative region of" their parent), the
-restriction imposed by the Ada 83 preface was unintentionally lost.  Note
+restriction imposed by the Ada 83 preface was unintentionally lost. Note
 that the AARM does not list this as a "Change from Ada 83", which is
-further evidence that this change was not intended.  Also, paragraph
+further evidence that this change was not intended. Also, paragraph
 7.3.1(7.b) of the AARM makes it clear that these rules were only meant
 to pertain to types declared within the same declarative region as the
 component type or parent type providing the additional operations.
@@ -178,7 +178,7 @@
 !corrigendum 7.3.1(6)
 
 @drepl
-Inherited primitive subprograms follow a different rule.  For a
+Inherited primitive subprograms follow a different rule. For a
 @fa<derived_type_definition>, each inherited primitive subprogram is implicitly
 declared at the earliest place, if any, within the immediate scope of the
 @fa<type_declaration>, but after the @fa<type_declaration>, where the
@@ -187,7 +187,7 @@
 that is not declared at all cannot be named in a call and cannot be overridden,
 but for a tagged type, it is possible to dispatch to it.
 @dby
-Inherited primitive subprograms follow a different rule.  For a
+Inherited primitive subprograms follow a different rule. For a
 @fa<derived_type_definition>, each inherited primitive subprogram is implicitly
 declared at the earliest place, if any, immediately within the declarative
 region in which the @fa<type_declaration> occurs, but after the

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent