CVS difference for arm/source/12.mss

Differences between 1.98 and version 1.99
Log of other versions for file arm/source/12.mss

--- arm/source/12.mss	2016/04/23 04:41:14	1.98
+++ arm/source/12.mss	2016/11/24 02:33:52	1.99
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 @Part(12, Root="ada.mss")
-@Comment{$Date: 2016/04/23 04:41:14 $}
+@Comment{$Date: 2016/11/24 02:33:52 $}
 @LabeledSection{Generic Units}
 @Comment{$Source: e:\\cvsroot/ARM/Source/12.mss,v $}
-@Comment{$Revision: 1.98 $}
+@Comment{$Revision: 1.99 $}
 @Defn{generic unit}
@@ -3107,9 +3107,25 @@
   when the formal subtype excludes null implicitly.]}
+@ChgAdded{Version=[5],Text=[If the named default, if any, is a prefixed view,
+the prefix of that view shall denote an object for which renaming is allowed
+(see @RefSecNum{Object Renaming Declarations}). Similarly, if the actual
+subprogram in an instantiation is a prefixed view, the prefix of that view
+shall denote an object for which renaming is allowed.]}
+  @ChgRef{Version=[5],Kind=[AddedNormal],ARef=[AI12-0204-1]}
+  @ChgAdded{Version=[5],Text=[The prefix in such a case is essentially renamed
+    at the point of the instantiation and passed to any calls of the
+    formal subprogram in the generic. If the prefix isn't legal
+    to rename, that doesn't make sense (and allowing it might end up passing a
+    nonexistent object to some calls).]}
+@ChgRef{Version=[5],Kind=[RevisedAdded]}@Comment{Paragraph number change only}
 @ChgAdded{Version=[2],Text=[If a formal parameter of a
 @nt{formal_@!abstract_@!subprogram_@!declaration} is of a
 specific tagged type @i<T> or of an anonymous access type designating a
@@ -3515,6 +3531,18 @@
   This is described in @RefSecNum{Aspect Specifications}.]}
+  @ChgRef{Version=[5],Kind=[AddedNormal],ARef=[AI12-0204-1]}
+  @ChgAdded{Version=[5],Text=[@Defn{incompatibilities with Ada 2012}@b<Correction:>
+  Added a rule to ensure that for an actual subprogram that is a prefixed
+  view, that the prefix continues to exist during the life of the instantiation.
+  If the prefix is a subcomponent that depends on discriminants, Ada 2005 and
+  2012 would have allowed the prefix while Ada 202x would not. Without this
+  change, explicit forms (renaming the object and then using that in
+  instantiations) would be safer than directly using the prefixed view;
+  that's inconsistent with other kinds of actual subprograms.]}

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent