CVS difference for ais/ai-00157.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00157.txt

--- ais/ai-00157.txt	2000/01/26 18:24:20	1.4
+++ ais/ai-00157.txt	2000/07/15 02:29:59	1.5
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 07.03    (15)                               00-01-24  AI95-00157/05
+!standard 07.03    (15)                               00-07-13  AI95-00157/06
 !class ramification 96-09-04
 !status Response 2000 00-01-24
 !status WG9 approved (8-0-0) 97-07-04
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 !priority High
 !difficulty Hard
 !qualifier Clarification
-!subject Visibility of Inherited Private Components
+!subject Visibility of inherited private components
 
 !summary
 
@@ -54,9 +54,9 @@
 
 !response
 
-There is a general rule that you can never have more visibility into the
-components or operations of a type than in the package where the type is
-declared.  Effectively, the components and operations of a type are
+There is a general design principle that you can never have more visibility
+into the components or operations of a type than in the package where the type
+is declared.  Effectively, the components and operations of a type are
 "frozen" to be those visible somewhere within the "immediate" scope of
 the type.  Even if you go into a package that knows more about the
 ancestors of the type, that doesn't change the set of components or
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
 So in the above example, the type Child is declared in a place where
 there is no visibility on the C component of Parent; hence this
 component is not declared, and it is legal to declare another,
-unrelated, C component in Parent.  Thus, X.C refers to the C component
+unrelated, C component in Child.  Thus, X.C refers to the C component
 declared in Child.  This is despite the fact that at the point of "X.C",
 it *is* visible that Child is derived from Parent, and it *is* visible
 that Parent has a component called C.  To refer to the C component from
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@
         end record;
 end P.Q;
 
-The above example is illegal, because in this case, Child *does* inherit
+The above example is illegal, because in this case Child *does* inherit
 C from Parent, so the second declaration of C is an illegal homograph.
 
 !ACATS test

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent