CVS difference for ais/ai-00166.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00166.txt

--- ais/ai-00166.txt	1999/02/28 01:42:59	1.4
+++ ais/ai-00166.txt	1999/06/22 01:44:37	1.5
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
-!standard C.3.2    (18)                               99-02-05  AI95-00166/03
+!standard C.3.2    (18)                               99-06-12  AI95-00166/03
 !class binding interpretation 96-11-16
+!status WG9 approved 99-06-12
 !status ARG approved (7-0-0) 98-10-09
 !status work item (draft by Ted Baker, per action at St. Louis meeting)
 !status received 96-11-16
@@ -7,7 +8,7 @@
 !difficulty Medium
 !subject Parameterless_Handler values designating default treatment
 
-!summary 99-02-05
+!summary
 
 When a default treatment is in effect for an interrupt, the value
 returned by Current_Handler is null.  Likewise, the value returned
@@ -19,7 +20,7 @@
 Old_Handler must be null whenever the treatment is not a
 user-defined handler.
 
-!question 96-11-16
+!question
 
 C.3.2(18) says, "The Exchange_Handler procedure operates in the same
 manner as Attach_Handler with the addition that the value returned in
@@ -28,13 +29,13 @@
 invoked while the default treatment is still in force, the value in
 Old_Handler can be dereferenced, with the dereference denoting a
 parameterless protected procedure that can be called to obtain the
-default treatment.  Is this the intent? [No.]
+default treatment.  Is this the intent? (No.)
 
-!recommendation 98-05-06
+!recommendation
 
 (See summary.)
 
-!wording 99-02-05
+!wording
 
 C.3.2(16) and C.3.2(18) need to be changed to reflect the summary of
 this AI.
@@ -43,7 +44,7 @@
 in C.3.2(18): add "If the previous treatment is not a user-defined handler,
 null is returned."
 
-!discussion 99-02-05
+!discussion
 
 A key fact here is that a "treatment" of an interrupt (whether
 default or user-defined) is not limited to execution of a handler,
@@ -120,7 +121,7 @@
 | predefined package Interrupts.
 
 This means that if an implementation supports handlers or other
-interrupt treatments (whether default or user-specified) 
+interrupt treatments (whether default or user-specified)
 there will be situations in which the semantics of the operations
 defined in Ada.Interrupts for parameterless protected procedure
 handlers must be modified to take into account these other forms
@@ -139,7 +140,7 @@
 situations where the default treatment cannot be simulated by a
 protected procedure.
 
-The intent of this section was that that the value returned by
+The intent of this section was that the value returned by
 Current_Handler or in Old_Handler may "represent" a handler or
 other treatment that is not a parameterless protected procedure,
 e.g., it might be an integer code for a default treatment or the
@@ -211,7 +212,7 @@
 to call it without parameters.  On the other hand, it would still
 be safe to use Exchange_Handler to restore such a handler.
 
-!appendix 96-11-16
+!appendix
 
 !section C.3.2(18)
 !subject Parameterless_Handler values designating default treatment
@@ -713,23 +714,23 @@
 What is this AI saying?
 
 Apparently Norm wants to tighten the semantics for the default handler.
-This is counter to the principle of leaving the semantics vague to permit 
-implementation flexibility, especially on existing operating systems.  Ted 
-complicates the situation by pointing out that an operating system can 
+This is counter to the principle of leaving the semantics vague to permit
+implementation flexibility, especially on existing operating systems.  Ted
+complicates the situation by pointing out that an operating system can
 change the default treatment.
 
-Also, there are some style changes, namely the use of treatment and handler 
-that is causing confusion; Bob indicates that treatment was added to permit 
+Also, there are some style changes, namely the use of treatment and handler
+that is causing confusion; Bob indicates that treatment was added to permit
 the ability of the default to change (by the OS).
 
 Erhard summarizes the alternatives (and prefers no. 1):
-1. Current and old handler is null for default treatment; this was modified 
+1. Current and old handler is null for default treatment; this was modified
 by Ted to "for any non-user-provided handler/treatment"
 2. Current and old handler is not null and callable (by X.all)
 3. Current and old handler is not null and may be callable if it is user-
 defined handler and not callable if it is default handler/treatment
 
-Bob states that the current statement of the RM permits either 1 or 3 as 
+Bob states that the current statement of the RM permits either 1 or 3 as
 defined by the implementation.
 
 Erhard asks for vote, late in the first day, on Alternative 1: 6-3

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent