CVS difference for ais/ai-60217.txt

Differences between 1.5 and version 1.6
Log of other versions for file ais/ai-60217.txt

--- ais/ai-60217.txt	2003/06/18 00:12:25	1.5
+++ ais/ai-60217.txt	2003/08/01 01:40:10	1.6
@@ -380,3 +380,62 @@
 alleviate the concern about being forced to use child units.
 
 **************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003  4:57 PM
+
+Randy asked me to submit this one again, because
+it wasn't complete.  In particular, it lacked rules
+on when A.all := B.all would be legal, and it didn't
+have any post-compilation rules regarding when a child
+package was "needed," etc. [Editor's note: This is version /02 of the AI.]
+
+Also, it is really variant "7" rather than "VIII" (sorry about
+that, can't imagine how I lost count ;-
+
+**************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003  9:29 AM
+
+As I am sure you realize, this AI has nothing to alleviate my concerns regarding
+the facts that (1) an implementation needs to juggle with both views of a unit
+at the same time and (2) addition of package renamings may cause existing names
+to become illegal.  Regardless of aesthetical preferences (and I still find
+"type C.T" distasteful) these are very serious implementation concerns to me.
+
+**************************************************************
+
+From: Tucker Taft
+Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003  1:52 PM
+
+I presume the "limited with" proposal will address these issues ;-).
+I am happy to update the -07 variant if you come up with
+a nice solution that works for it as well.
+
+**************************************************************
+
+From: Pascal Leroy
+Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003  9:29 AM
+
+It may be that the "simplest" solution is to alter proposed wording for 3.10.1(10)
+and 8.3(19), so that instead of saying simply "the completion is visible",
+we say "the completion is visible (other than via a renaming that is
+not a library unit renaming)."
+
+There might be a less painful way to say it.  Perhaps something like
+"where the completion is visible and, furthermore, that is within the library
+unit enclosing the completion or within the scope of a 'with' clause that
+mentions this library unit or a library unit renaming thereof."
+
+Still pretty painful...
+
+The level of wording pain may not matter that much, if we think this will
+work in the obvious way for normal cases.  I understand the goal
+of keeping it as straightforward to implement as possible.
+We are only dealing with cases where both the incomplete type and the
+completion are in scope, but by different fully expanded names,
+which has got to be rare.
+
+**************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent