CVS difference for ais/ai-00364.txt

Differences between 1.4 and version 1.5
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00364.txt

--- ais/ai-00364.txt	2004/03/02 01:43:25	1.4
+++ ais/ai-00364.txt	2004/03/02 04:45:01	1.5
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 !standard  04.05.05(20)                                04-02-29  AI95-00364/01
 !class amendment 03-12-04
+!status work item 04-02-29
 !status received 03-09-29
 !priority Medium
 !difficulty Hard
@@ -237,6 +238,23 @@
 
 ****************************************************************
 
+From: Robert I. Eachus
+Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004  11:12 AM
+
+I prefer the "either" rule.  It would probably be possible to define a
+'better' rule somewhere in the middle, but getting to complex in this
+rule would certainly confuse users.  If any package exports both a
+fixed-point type and a fixed-fixed "*" operation for it, calling the
+predefined universal_fixed "*" is usually not wanted in any case, even
+if the fixed-fixed operator is for say Dollars * Hours.
+
+I will point out one surprising result of this rule.  By 3.2.3(6), an
+operation in the private part of a package can be a primitive operation
+for a (non-private) type declared in the public part of the package.
+The right solution may just be "don't do that."
+
+****************************************************************
+
 From: Robert Dewar
 Sent: Monday, March  1, 2004  6:29 PM
 
@@ -260,5 +278,30 @@
 Anyway, vendors have indicated that they have customers that have stuck with
 Ada 83 precisely because of this issue. Removing barriers to migration to
 newer versions Ada would seem to be valuable.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, March  1, 2004  8:13 PM
+
+> Humm, is this the same Robert Dewar who wrote a few months ago:
+>
+> "We have run into similar situations. I like this fix. I think it is
+> worth while. In fact I would suggest allowing Ada 95 compilers to do
+> this right away, why not?"
+
+Yes, it's the same Robert Dewar (I wrote that in October 2003). I guess
+the additional time passing has made me feel less sangine about the
+effect at this stage.
+
+> Anyway, vendors have indicated that they have customers that have stuck with
+> Ada 83 precisely because of this issue. Removing barriers to migration to
+> newer versions Ada would seem to be valuable.
+
+Well that's a very strong and significant user input, which seems
+decisive to me.
+
+So I think on reflection I will go with the October RD rather than
+the March RD :-)
 
 ****************************************************************

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent