CVS difference for ais/ai-00170.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00170.txt

--- ais/ai-00170.txt	1998/09/30 00:17:32	1.1
+++ ais/ai-00170.txt	1998/10/15 17:31:22	1.2
@@ -1,20 +1,35 @@
-!standard 13.03    (05)                               97-03-19  AI95-00170/00
+!standard 13.03    (05)                               98-10-15  AI95-00170/01
 !class confirmation 96-11-16
+!status work item 98-10-15
 !status received 96-11-16
 !priority Low
 !difficulty Easy
 !subject Can an attribute defined in an annex be set in an attribute definition clause?
 
-!summary 96-11-16
+!summary 98-10-15
 
+An attribute defined in an annex cannot be set in an attribute definition
+clause, unless the Reference Manual explicitely allows it.
 
+
 !question 96-11-16
 
+Can an attribute defined in an annex be set in an attribute definition clause?
+
+!response 98-10-15
+
+13.3(5) says that:
+   "An attribute_designator is allowed in an attribute_definition_clause only if
+   this International Standard explicitely allows it, or for an implementation
+   defined attribute if the implementation allows it. [...]"
 
-!response 96-11-16
+1.1.2 (14) says that:
+   "The core language and the Specialized Needs Annexes are normative, [...]"
 
+Therefore, the legality rule in 13.3(5) clearly applies to annexes as well as to
+the core language.
 
-!appendix 97-03-19
+!appendix 98-10-15
 
 !section 13.3(05)
 !subject Can an attribute defined in an annex be set in an attribute definition clause?
@@ -138,5 +153,22 @@
 
 - Bob
 
+****************************************************************
+
+From: 	Robert Dewar[SMTP:dewar@gnat.com]
+Sent: 	Thursday, October 15, 1998 6:30 AM
+Subject: 	Re: AI-170
+
+there is a mismatch of intents here. The question is all about the utility
+of allowing a user to specify Machine_Overflows, not about the syntax to be
+used in doing it.
+
+THe utility question is an interesting one, and the question is whether to
+revisit the design decision.
+
+Right now, no compiler I know of allows this to be user specifiable, so
+worrying hard about making sure that the specification of this, if it
+*were* allowed would be portable between compilers that *did* allow it
+seems a complete waste of time to me.
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent