CVS difference for ais/ai-00041.txt
--- ais/ai-00041.txt 2000/06/21 23:39:06 1.11
+++ ais/ai-00041.txt 2000/07/15 02:29:54 1.12
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 08.03 (16) 00-04-12 AI95-00041/13
+!standard 08.03 (16) 00-07-13 AI95-00041/14
!standard 08.03 (18)
!standard 10.01.05 (07)
!standard 12.03 (13)
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
Do program unit pragmas and in particular library unit pragmas within a
generic unit and referring to the generic unit apply to all instances of the
-generic unit ?
@@ -58,23 +58,20 @@
package QI is new Q(...);
-Does the pragma Pure apply to the respective instances PI and QI ? Since
-pragma Pure is a library unit pragma, are instantiations of P and Q illegal,
-if the resulting instances are not library units ?
+Does the pragma Pure apply to the respective instances PI and QI? (No.)
+Since pragma Pure is a library unit pragma, are instantiations of P and Q
+illegal, if the resulting instances are not library units? (No.)
Library unit pragmas within a generic unit and applying to the generic unit
itself do not apply to instances of the generic unit, unless a specific
semantic rule of the pragma specifies the contrary.
-A sentence to this effect should be appended to 10.1.5(2).
If the user wants such a pragma to apply to an instance, then it must be
repeated explicitly for the instance.
-A respective note to the user should be added to 10.1.5.
The program unit pragma INLINE applies to all instances, based on an
explicit semantic rule of the pragma. Since a ruling on the applicability
of program unit pragmas affects only implementation-defined support of
@@ -89,9 +86,9 @@
-An exegesis of the Reference Manual showed that a clear answer to the questions
-cannot be derived from the current standard. This exegesis is not reproduced for
-the Defect Report, but can be retrieved from the appendix of the working document
+An exegesis of the standard showed that a clear answer to the questions
+cannot be derived from it. This exegesis is not reproduced for the
+Defect Report, but can be retrieved from the appendix of the working document
An examination of the individual program unit pragmas follows.
@@ -260,7 +257,7 @@
Additionally, a confirmation of the intent that this pragma should be
-explicitly specified is present in AARM E.2.3(15b) where it is stated "We
+explicitly specified is present in AARM E.2.3(15.b) where it is stated, "We
considered making the public child of an RCI package implicitly RCI, but it
seemed better to require an explicit pragma to avoid any confusion." It
seems inconsistent to require an explicit pragma for a public child and not
@@ -317,7 +314,7 @@
that, in some cases, applicability of the pragma to all instances would be
seriously detrimental. We have seen other cases of library unit pragmas,
where applicability to all instances may be more convenient on occasion, but
-is neither absolutely necessary nor warrants a rule that a-priori precludes
+is neither absolutely necessary nor warrants a rule that *a priori* precludes
reusable generic units that can be instantiated in both restricted and unrestricted
@@ -327,7 +324,7 @@
only in cases, where applicability of the pragma to generic units is
implementation-defined, and one can equally well conceive of future
language-defined or implementation-defined pragmas, where automatic
-applicability to instances would not be appropriate, we recommend to make
+applicability to instances would not be appropriate, it was decided to make
such an inheritance of pragmas by instances merely implementation advice, not
a general semantic rule.
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent