CVS difference for ais/ai-00034.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00034.txt

--- ais/ai-00034.txt	1998/09/30 00:17:08	1.1
+++ ais/ai-00034.txt	1999/07/21 03:10:56	1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 03.02    (09)                               96-11-16  AI95-00034/02
+!standard 03.02    (09)                               99-05-27  AI95-00034/03
 !class ramification 95-06-25
 !status WG9 approved 96-12-07
 !status ARG Approved (subject to editorial review) 9-0-2  96-10-07
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
 !difficulty Hard
 !subject Unconstrained Formal types
 
-!summary 95-06-25
+!summary
 
 A formal private subtype without discriminants is constrained.
 
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 the constraint given in the subtype_indication overrides the
 constraint (if any) that might have come from the actual subtype.
 
-!question 95-06-25
+!question
 
 When is a generic formal subtype unconstrained?
 
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
 
 However, this does not seem to follow from the RM rules.
 
-!response 95-11-16
+!response
 
 3.2(9) says:
 
@@ -128,8 +128,12 @@
 Constrained-ness of a scalar type has an effect at run-time, but at
 run-time, only instances exist, not generic units.
 
-!appendix 95-10-12
+!ACATS test
 
+A C-Test should be created out of the examples in this AI.
+
+!appendix
+
 !section 3.2(9)
 !subject Unconstrained Formal types
 !reference AARM-3.2(9);6.0
@@ -409,19 +413,19 @@
 
 > This AI has an example that completely confuses me (and a number of my
 > colleagues):
-> 
+>
 > generic
 >       type Str_Ptr is access String;
 > package GP is
 > end GP;
-> 
+>
 > type Str_P is access String;
 > subtype Str_P_7 is Str_P(1..7);
 > package P is new GP(Str_P_7); -- Legal? (Yes.)
-> 
+>
 > 12.5.4(3) says that "for a formal access-to-object type, the designated
 > subtype of the formal and the actual types shall statically match."
-> 
+>
 > The designated subtype of the formal is clearly String.  I would guess that
 > the designated subtype of Str_P_7 is String(1..7), but I was unable to deduce
 > that from the RM.
@@ -432,11 +436,11 @@
 
 > 4.9.1(2) says that "a subtype statically matches another subtype ... if they
 > have statically matching constraints."
-> 
+>
 > It's a bit unclear how this rule applies to an unconstrained subtype, but it
 > seems safe to say that the constraint of String doesn't statically match that
 > of String (1..7).
-> 
+>
 > So why is it that the instantiation above is legal?
 
 The designated subtypes are both String, and String statically matches

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent