CVS difference for ais/ai-00237.txt

--- ais/ai-00237.txt	2000/06/01 03:31:50	1.2
+++ ais/ai-00237.txt	2000/06/02 00:23:26	1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard C.07.02  (17)                               00-05-31  AI95-00237/01
+!standard C.07.02  (17)                               00-06-01  AI95-00237/02
 !class binding interpretation 00-05-31
 !status received 00-05-16
 !priority Low
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
 Delete C.7.2(17).
 
 Add the following after C.7.2(29):
-   When a task terminates, an implementation may finalize all attributes of
+   After a task terminates, an implementation may finalize all attributes of
    the task, and reclaim any other storage associated with the attributes.
 
 !discussion
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@
 attribute a task may have, the maximum size of each attribut, and the total
 storage size allocated for all attributes of a task.
 @dinst
-When a task terminates, an implementation may finalize all attributes of
+After a task terminates, an implementation may finalize all attributes of
 the task, and reclaim any other storage associated with the attributes.
 
 !ACATS test
@@ -1951,6 +1951,48 @@
 
 I would not object to this change, since it seems to be neutral or
 friendly to both vendors and users.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 8:28 AM
+
+Randy Brukardt wrote:
+>
+> Here is the writeup for AI-237, based on the conclusions of the discussion
+> on Ada comment. (I've omitted the lengthy E-Mail discussion from this mail;
+> please download the AI from the web site (www.ada-auth.org/~acats/arg) if
+> you're interested.)
+>
+>                         Randy.
+
+This looks pretty good to me.  My only complaint is that we are still
+somewhat ambiguous in the proposed wording that finalization may only
+happen *after* the task terminates.  Just saying it may occur "when" the task
+terminates might be misconstrued, in the same way the current wording
+has been misconstrued.
+
+-Tuck
+--
+-Tucker Taft   stt@averstar.com   http://www.averstar.com/~stt/
+Technical Director, Commercial Division, AverStar (formerly Intermetrics)
+(http://www.averstar.com/services/IT_consulting.html)  Burlington, MA  USA
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 12:12 PM
+
+Tuck said:
+
+> This looks pretty good to me.  My only complaint is that we are still
+> somewhat ambiguous in the proposed wording that finalization may only
+> happen *after* the task terminates.  Just saying it may occur "when" the
+> task terminates might be misconstrued, in the same way the current
+> wording has been misconstrued.
+
+You are correct here. I meant to fix that; I changed the wording of the
+permission to "After the task terminates, ...". I'm not sure that reads well,
+but it was easy. :-)
 
 *************************************************************