CVS difference for ais/ai-00409.txt

Differences between 1.5 and version 1.6
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-00409.txt

--- ais/ai-00409.txt	2005/08/05 04:37:13	1.5
+++ ais/ai-00409.txt	2006/01/10 22:17:51	1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 6.3.1 (15)                                   05-07-12  AI95-00409/04
+!standard 6.3.1 (15)                                   06-01-06  AI95-00409/05
 !standard 6.3.1 (16)
 !standard 8.5.1 (2)
 !standard 8.5.1 (3)
@@ -77,9 +77,12 @@
     have a designated profile {that}[which] is [subtype]{type} conformant with
     that of the access_definition.
 
-Replace last part of 8.5.1(4) (as modified by AI-231):
+Replace last part of 8.5.1(4) (as modified by AI-231) and make it a separate
+paragraph:
 
-    ... In the case where the type is defined by an access_definition, the type
+    ...
+
+    In the case where the type is defined by an access_definition, the type
     of the renamed object and the type defined by the access_definition:
     * shall both be access-to-object types with statically matching designated
       subtypes and with both or neither being access-to-constant types; or
@@ -205,10 +208,9 @@
 
 !corrigendum 8.5.1(4)
 
-@drepl
-The renamed entity shall be an object.
-@dby
+@dinsa
 The renamed entity shall be an object.
+@dinss
 In the case where the type is defined by an @fa<access_definition>,
 the type of the renamed object and the type defined by the access_definition:
 @xbullet<shall both be access-to-object types with statically matching designated
@@ -308,6 +310,27 @@
 Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2005  4:15 AM
 
 Agreed.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Monday, January  2, 2006  8:15 PM
+
+It seems odd that paragraph 8.5.1(4/1) combines the
+following:
+
+   The renamed entity shall be an object. In the case
+   where the type is defined by an access_definition,
+   the type of the renamed object and the type defined
+   by the access_definition:
+
+     * shall both be blah blah; or
+
+     * shall both be blah blah.
+
+Wouldn't it make more sense for the second sentence
+to start its own paragraph?  It seems to have almost
+nothing to do with the first sentence.
 
 *************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent