CVS difference for ais/ai-00221.txt
--- ais/ai-00221.txt 1999/06/25 19:40:24 1.1
+++ ais/ai-00221.txt 2000/04/14 01:45:08 1.2
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
-!standard 13.7 (15) 99-06-25 AI95-00221/01
+!standard 13.7 (15) 00-04-12 AI95-00221/02
!standard 13.7 (35)
!class binding interpretation 99-06-25
+!status ARG Approved 8-0-0 00-03-31
!status work item 99-06-25
!status received 99-06-14
@@ -13,8 +14,8 @@
-13.7(15) defines System.Default_Bit_Order as a defered constant. This requires
-it to be non-static, and prevents its use in representation clauses. Was this
+13.7(15) defines System.Default_Bit_Order as a deferred constant. This requires
+it to be nonstatic, and prevents its use in representation clauses. Was this
@@ -25,7 +26,7 @@
Replace the definition of Default_Bit_Order in 13.7(15) by:
- Default_Bit_Order : constant Bit_Order := <implementation-defined>;
+ Default_Bit_Order : constant Bit_Order := implementation-defined;
Add Default_Bit_Order shall be a static constant to 13.7(35).
@@ -64,7 +65,7 @@
Robert Dewar wrote:
> > One other little point, why on earth is Default_Bit_Order required to
-> > be non-static, this seems a huge goof, since it is most obvious that you
+> > be nonstatic, this seems a huge goof, since it is most obvious that you
> > might use this to conditionalize rep clauses.
Tucker Taft responded:
@@ -82,7 +83,7 @@
I think we should rule that Default_Bit_Order should be a non-deferred
constant. I suspect it was unintentional that Default_Bit_Order
-should be non-static.
+should be nonstatic.
@@ -113,7 +114,7 @@
> I think we should rule that Default_Bit_Order should be a non-deferred
> constant. I suspect it was unintentional that Default_Bit_Order
-> should be non-static.
+> should be nonstatic.
I wrote that section, and as I recall, the only reason I made it a
deferred constant was to avoid having to write yet one more italicized
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent