CVS difference for ais/ai-00294.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00294.txt

--- ais/ai-00294.txt	2002/06/11 05:15:50	1.3
+++ ais/ai-00294.txt	2003/05/24 00:08:05	1.4
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
-!standard  3.9.3  (09)                                 02-05-17  AI95-00294/02
-!class confirmation 02-05-16
+!standard  3.9.3  (09)                                 02-05-23  AI95-00294/03
+!class ramification 03-05-23
 !status work item 02-05-16
 !status received 02-05-13
 !qualifier Clarification
@@ -97,6 +97,22 @@
 an integer type parameter with Boolean as long as "+" and the other mathematics
 operators aren't called, so this case should not be any different.
 
+In order to clarify the wording, we add "(nonoverridden)" to 3.9.3(9).
+
+!corrigendum 3.9.3(09)
+
+!drepl
+If a partial view is not abstract, the corresponding full view shall not be
+abstract. If a generic formal type is abstract, then for each primitive
+subprogram of the formal that is not abstract, the corresponding primitive
+subprogram of the actual shall not be abstract.
+!dby
+If a partial view is not abstract, the corresponding full view shall not be
+abstract. If a generic formal type is abstract, then for each primitive
+subprogram of the formal that is not abstract, the corresponding
+(nonoverridden) primitive subprogram of the actual shall not be abstract.
+
+
 !ACATS test
 
 A B-Test could be created for this case, but I don't know how valuable it would
@@ -458,6 +474,24 @@
                                          ~~~~ which has
 > parameter that inherits a concrete operation with a type that provides an
 > abstract version of the concrete operation.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Steven W. Baird
+Sent: Wednesday, May  7, 2003  3:55 PM
+
+3.9.3(9), sentence 2, says:
+   If a generic formal type is abstract, then
+   for each primitive subprogram of the formal that
+   is not abstract, the corresponding primitive subprogram
+   of the actual shall not be abstract.
+
+AI-294 makes the point that some kind of wording change is needed
+to make it clear that the "corresponding" subprogram in question
+is not the same as the "corresponding" subprogram of 3.4(17).
+
+I believe that it would suffice to add the word "nonoverridden"
+(possibly in parens) immediately after the word "corresponding".
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent