CVS difference for ais/ai-00215.txt
--- ais/ai-00215.txt 1999/04/01 20:01:31 1.2
+++ ais/ai-00215.txt 1999/06/22 01:44:38 1.3
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
-!standard E.4 (18) 99-02-12 AI95-00215/01
+!standard E.4 (18) 99-06-12 AI95-00215/01
!class binding interpretation 99-02-12
+!status WG9 approved 99-06-12
!status ARG Approved 9-0-0 99-03-24
!status work item 99-02-12
!priority Medium
@@ -15,11 +16,11 @@
!question
The rule of E.4(18) requires a check for the actual parameter of a remote
-subprogram call with a formal parameter of a class-wide type. This check
+subprogram call with a formal parameter of a class-wide type. This check
is to prevent the passage of objects whose type is not a "communicable" type.
However, no check is required for a function returning a class-wide object.
Therefore, a function can return an object that is not of a "communicable"
-type. Was this intended? [No.]
+type. Was this intended? (No.)
!recommendation
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent