# CVS difference for arm/source/08.mss

Differences between 1.97 and version 1.98
Log of other versions for file arm/source/08.mss

```--- arm/source/08.mss	2012/02/18 02:17:37	1.97
+++ arm/source/08.mss	2012/02/19 01:58:36	1.98
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@

-@Comment{\$Date: 2012/02/18 02:17:37 \$}
+@Comment{\$Date: 2012/02/19 01:58:36 \$}
@LabeledSection{Visibility Rules}

@Comment{\$Source: e:\\cvsroot/ARM/Source/08.mss,v \$}
-@Comment{\$Revision: 1.97 \$}
+@Comment{\$Revision: 1.98 \$}

@begin{Intro}
@redundant[The rules defining the scope of declarations and the rules defining
@@ -691,7 +691,7 @@
and there is a place where they are all directly visible.]
@begin{Ramification}
Note that a @nt{name} can have more than one possible interpretation
-even if it denotes a non-overloadable entity.
+even if it denotes a nonoverloadable entity.
For example, if there are two functions F that return records,
both containing a component called C, then
the name F.C has two possible interpretations,
@@ -747,7 +747,7 @@
subprogram]}, @Redundant[regardless of which declaration occurs first];
@begin{Ramification}
@ChgRef{Version=[1],Kind=[Revised],Ref=[8652/0025],ARef=[AI95-00044-01]}
-And regardless of whether the @Chg{New=[non-overridable],Old=[explicit]}
+And regardless of whether the @Chg{New=[nonoverridable],Old=[explicit]}
@Chg{New=[For example, @nt{statement_identifier}s are covered by this rule.],Old=[]}

@@ -1096,11 +1096,11 @@
@begin{Legality}
@ChgRef{Version=[1],Kind=[Revised],Ref=[8652/0025],Ref=[8652/0026],ARef=[AI95-00044-01],ARef=[AI95-00150-01]}
@ChgRef{Version=[2],Kind=[Revised],ARef=[AI95-00377-01]}
-@Chg{New=[A non-overridable],Old=[An explicit]} declaration is illegal if there is a
+@Chg{New=[A nonoverridable],Old=[An explicit]} declaration is illegal if there is a
homograph occurring immediately within the same
declarative region that is visible at the place of the
declaration, and is not hidden from all visibility by the
-@Chg{New=[non-overridable],Old=[explicit]} declaration.
+@Chg{New=[nonoverridable],Old=[explicit]} declaration.
@Chg{New=[In addition, a type extension is illegal if somewhere within its
immediate scope it has two visible components with the same name.],Old=[]}
Similarly, the @nt<context_clause> for a @Chg{Version=[2],
@@ -1162,7 +1162,7 @@
@NoPrefix@;A previous version of Ada 9X allowed the subunit,
and said that references to P.Q would tend to be ambiguous.
-to resolve references to directly visible non-overloadable
+to resolve references to directly visible nonoverloadable
homographs, which is something compilers have never before been
required to do.

@@ -1349,7 +1349,7 @@

Because of the way we have defined "declaration",
it is possible for a usage name to denote a @nt{subprogram_body}, either
-within that body, or (for a non-library unit) after it
+within that body, or (for a nonlibrary unit) after it
(since the body hides the corresponding declaration, if any).
Other bodies do not work that way.
Completions of @nt{type_declaration}s and
@@ -1889,7 +1889,7 @@
The considered rule would have made just one of them use-visible.
We gave up on this idea due to the complexity of the rule.
the case where the rule should apply only to some subset of the
declarations with the same defining name,
and the case of @nt{subtype_declaration}s
@@ -2779,7 +2779,7 @@
primitiveness is not determined by the renamed view.
In order to perform a dispatching call,
the subprogram name has to denote a primitive subprogram,
-not a non-primitive renaming of a primitive subprogram.
+not a nonprimitive renaming of a primitive subprogram.
@begin{Reason}
A @nt{subprogram_renaming_declaration} could more properly be called
@ntf{renaming_@!as_@!subprogram_@!declaration}, since you're renaming something
@@ -2963,7 +2963,7 @@
some other possible interpretation
is assumed to be the actual interpretation.
On the other hand,