CVS difference for ais/ai-10260.txt

Differences between 1.3 and version 1.4
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-10260.txt

--- ais/ai-10260.txt	2004/11/14 06:37:22	1.3
+++ ais/ai-10260.txt	2004/11/17 00:52:59	1.4
@@ -237,7 +237,7 @@
 19 The subprogram declared by a formal_abstract_subprogram_declaration
 is an abstract subprogram. All calls on a subprogram declared by a
 formal_abstract_subprogram_declaration must be dispatching calls. See 3.9.3.
-[These things are defined in 3.9.3, but they are important to
+[Editor's Note: These things are defined in 3.9.3, but they are important to
 mention here.]
 
 Replace 13.13.2(31) by:
@@ -554,7 +554,7 @@
 !appendix
 
 From: Tucker Taft
-Sent: Saturday, Saturday 13, 2004  5:43 PM
+Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004  5:43 PM
 
 I would recommend that we allow defaults
 for formal abstract subprograms.
@@ -579,16 +579,69 @@
 ****************************************************************
 
 From: Randy Brukardt
-Sent: Saturday, Saturday 13, 2004  10:28 PM
+Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004  10:28 PM
 
 Because the syntax is unspeakable?
 
-Anyway, I asked this exact question at the Madison meeting, and received the answer that it wasn't important. I thought it was you that actually voiced that. The minutes say:
+Anyway, I asked this exact question at the Madison meeting, and received the
+answer that it wasn't important. I thought it was you that actually voiced
+that. The minutes say:
 
 "For the dispatching formal subprogram, is abstract replaces is Default,
 meaning you can't specify a default for such a subprogram. Not a big deal."
 
 I certainly wouldn't have left it out if we hadn't already discussed it.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2004  6:33 AM
+
+> Because the syntax is unspeakable?
+
+I think we actually discussed "is abstract is <>;" which
+I agree is unspeakable.  But "is abstract <>;" doesn't
+seem so bad.
+
+> Anyway, I asked this exact question at the Madison meeting, and received the
+> answer that it wasn't important. I thought it was you that actually voiced
+> that. The minutes say:
+>
+> "For the dispatching formal subprogram, is abstract replaces is Default,
+> meaning you can't specify a default for such a subprogram. Not a big deal."
+
+I think I was reacting mostly to the "is abstract is blah;" but also,
+this is one of those things that didn't really hit me until later,
+after I had seen some examples.  I hate when you have two features,
+where you are forced into choosing one or the other, but what you
+really want is both, and for some apparently arbitrary reason, you
+can't use the features together.  I think a lot of the little fixes
+we are doing this time represent attempts to make more features work
+together better, so I hate to create a new situation where we disallow
+reasonable feature combination.
+>
+> I certainly wouldn't have left it out if we hadn't already discussed it.
+
+I think we should reconsider, based on seeing and thinking about
+more examples of use.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+From: Robert A. Duff
+Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2004  10:14 AM
+
+> I think we actually discussed "is abstract is <>;" which
+> I agree is unspeakable.  But "is abstract <>;" doesn't
+> seem so bad.
+
+An "abstract <>" is a "black box".  ;-)
+
+>...  I hate when you have two features,
+> where you are forced into choosing one or the other, but what you
+> really want is both, and for some apparently arbitrary reason, you
+> can't use the features together.
+
+I very much agree with that sentiment.
 
 ****************************************************************
 

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent