CVS difference for ais/ai-00086.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00086.txt

--- ais/ai-00086.txt	2000/01/26 18:24:20	1.3
+++ ais/ai-00086.txt	2000/07/08 02:40:52	1.4
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-!standard 12.07(0) (00)                               00-01-25  AI95-00086/05
+!standard 12.07(0) (00)                               00-07-07  AI95-00086/06
 !class confirmation 95-08-19
-!status Response 2000 00-01-25
+!status work item 00-07-07
 !status WG9 approved (8-0-0) 97-07-04
 !status ARG approved (5-0-2) 97-04-11
 !status work item 95-08-19
@@ -27,6 +27,12 @@
+If a generic formal package B whose actual part is (<>) is passed as an
+actual to another generic formal package A without (<>), then 12.7(5-8)
+requires the actuals of B to match the actuals of A.  For the purpose of
+this rule, the actuals of B are the entities denoted by names of the
+form B.x, where x is a generic formal parameter of B.
 12.7(5-8) require the actual parameters of the actual package to match
 the actual parameters of the formal package.  But if the actual package
 has (<>), then its actual parameters are denoted by the formal
@@ -71,9 +77,9 @@
 because I2 contains a variable (Y) of type Boolean, initialized to I1.X,
 which is of type Integer.
-Note that we cannot defer the check until instantiation time, because I3
-could be in the *body* of G2 (instead of in the spec, as shown above),
-and this would constitute a contract model violation.
+Note that we cannot defer the check of I3 until the instantiation of G2,
+because I3 could be in the *body* of G2 (instead of in the specification,
+as shown above), and this would constitute a contract model violation.
 Now, consider the following legal example:
@@ -374,5 +380,20 @@
 Pascal Leroy                                    +                             + FAX
+From the editor, July 7, 2000
+At the Potsdam ARG meeting (the 11th ARG meeting), it was decided that this
+AI should not appear in the Records of Response, as it no one was able to
+provide a explanation as to how the the conclusion follows from the existing
+text of the RM. Moreover, we didn't feel capable to write that text at this
+The AI will be changed back to a work item, in order to either find an
+appropriate explanation, or to decide on wording to implement the
+recommendation (that is, a change in status from !confirmation to !binding

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent