CVS difference for ais/ai-00306.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00306.txt

--- ais/ai-00306.txt	2003/03/04 04:56:23	1.3
+++ ais/ai-00306.txt	2003/05/24 00:51:41	1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard  4.3.2 (05)                                  03-02-18  AI95-00306/02
+!standard  4.3.2 (05)                                   03-05-22  AI95-00306/03
 !class binding interpretation 02-08-28
 !status Amendment 200Y 03-02-18
 !status ARG Approved 7-0-1  03-02-09
@@ -51,14 +51,14 @@
 
 This appears to be legal, because the type of the
 ancestor expression is T, and the aggregate's type (TT) is derived
-from T (through one or more record extensions...). So this appears
-to be legal in spite of the fact that F (X) is a dispatching call.
+from T (through one or more record extensions...). This is true in spite
+of the fact that F (X) is a dispatching call.
 
 It seems this should be illegal, as it would require the expression object of
-T'Class (which might be an object of TT) to implicitly 'truncate' to type T.
+T'Class (which might be an object of TT) to implicitly "truncate" to type T.
 Usually, this is illegal by 3.9.2(9), but that rule doesn't apply in this
 case because the expected type is not a specific tagged type. (4.3.2(4)
-specifies 'some non-limited tagged type'.)
+specifies "some non-limited tagged type".)
 
 !recommendation
 
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
 type. The problem is that the rule in 3.9.2(9/1) is stated to only
 apply if "the expected type is some specific tagged type". However
 the wording in 4.3.2(4) talks about expecting a type in a class of
-types, and that doesn't seem to jibe with expecting some specific
+types, and that doesn't seem to accord with expecting some specific
 type. It's not clear how 3.9.2(9/1) could be cleanly reworded to
 cover this case. Thus, this approach was rejected.
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent