CVS difference for ais/ai-00137.txt

Differences between 1.6 and version 1.7
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00137.txt

--- ais/ai-00137.txt	2000/04/20 20:20:13	1.6
+++ ais/ai-00137.txt	2000/06/20 04:22:43	1.7
@@ -31,8 +31,8 @@
    package Attr_Rep is
      type NT is new T;
      procedure Attribute_Write(
-	       Stream : access Root_Stream_Type'Class;
-	       Item   : in NT);
+               Stream : access Root_Stream_Type'Class;
+               Item   : in NT);
      for NT'Write use Attribute_Write; -- Illegal?  (No.)
    end Attr_Rep;
 
@@ -650,6 +650,98 @@
 AT the Phoenix ARG meeting, it was decided to minimize the syntax changes
 (by only changing Representation_Clause to Aspect_Clause), and make all other
 changes in the text. The current wording reflects that.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 3:35 AM
+
+I am looking at DR 9 and I am puzzled by an inconsistency between 13.1(9) and
+13.14(9) in the existing RM.  These paragraphs read:
+
+"A representation item that directly specifies an aspect of a subtype or type
+shall appear after the type is completely defined and before the subtype or type
+is frozen." (13.1(9))
+
+"A representation item that directly specifies an aspect of an entity shall
+appear before the entity is frozen." (13.14(19))
+
+13.1(9) seems to allow a representation item for a subprogram, object, etc.
+after it has been frozen.  13.14(19) seems to disallow such a representation
+item.  13.14(19) is between square brackets, so presumably it should be a
+consequence of other rules, but it isn't.
+
+Clearly DR 9, which rewrites these paragraphs, ought to fix the inconsistency.  However, I am not sure which paragraph is correct.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Erhard Ploedereder
+Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 10:36 AM
+
+I don't see the inconsistency. It's only a partial duplication, with 13.1(9)
+adding an additional constraint for types and subtypes (namely the "after
+the type is completely defined").
+
+Now, a better way -- taken out of context -- might have been to combine the
+two paragraphs and say:
+
+> "A representation item that directly specifies an aspect of an entity shall
+> appear before the entity is frozen. In addition, a representation item
+> that directly specifies an aspect of a subtype or type shall appear
+> after the type is completely defined.
+
+("Insufficiently wrong", I would argue or am I missing something ?)
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2000 2:03 AM
+
+> I don't see the inconsistency. It's only a partial duplication, with 13.1(9)
+> adding an additional constraint for types and subtypes (namely the "after
+> the type is completely defined").
+
+The thing that was bothering me is that 13.14(19) is in square brackets, and
+has a cross-reference to 13.1, which seems to imply that it can somehow be
+deduced from some rule(s) in 13.1.  But obviously that's not true because
+the only relevant rule is 13.1(9), which only applies to types and subtypes.
+
+> "A representation item that directly specifies an aspect of an entity shall
+> appear before the entity is frozen. In addition, a representation item
+> that directly specifies an aspect of a subtype or type shall appear
+> after the type is completely defined.
+>
+> ("Insufficiently wrong", I would argue or am I missing something ?)
+
+Since we are rewriting 13.1(9) anyway (because of operational items) I would
+be tempted to include the wording that you suggest above.  It is a bit
+confusing that you have to look at two different places to learn about the
+interactions between freezing rules and representation items (at least, it
+confused me).
+
+"Insufficiently wrong" would be a valid argument if we didn't have to
+rewrite this paragraph, but we do, so we might as well do it right.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 5:41 PM
+
+For what its worth, we are not rewriting 13.1(9); we're only inserting a new one
+after it. So that particular reason for changing it doesn't hold water. We did
+change 13.14(19), but it isn't the problem.
+
+Additionally, there is no problem with the RM, only with the AARM. It is the
+@redundant for 13.14(19) that's wrong, not necessarily any of the wording. On
+the other hand 13.14(19.b) clearly references 13.1(7) (the *wrong* paragraph!)
+as the full definition, and blames^H^H^H^H^H^Hattributes the change to a WG9
+resolution. One could argue that incompletely making a WG9-required change is a
+bug.
+
+I would be concerned about adding anything else to this AI, simply because the
+increases the risk that it isn't right. We're still a long ways from having any
+consensus on it as it is, the more stuff we stick into it, the more likely that
+we'll have to kill it at the meeting.
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent