CVS difference for arm/source/13b.mss
--- arm/source/13b.mss 2016/08/05 07:11:21 1.114
+++ arm/source/13b.mss 2016/11/24 02:33:52 1.115
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
@Part(13, Root="ada.mss")
-@Comment{$Date: 2016/08/05 07:11:21 $}
+@Comment{$Date: 2016/11/24 02:33:52 $}
@Comment{$Source: e:\\cvsroot/ARM/Source/13b.mss,v $}
-@Comment{$Revision: 1.114 $}
+@Comment{$Revision: 1.115 $}
@RMNewPage
@LabeledClause{The Package System}
@@ -6655,7 +6655,8 @@
of a declarative part freezes everything in the declarative part.]}
@end{Discussion}
-@Leading@PDefn2{Term=[freezing],
+@ChgRef{Version=[5],Kind=[Revised],ARef=[AI12-0186-1]}
+@PDefn2{Term=[freezing],
Sec=[type caused by the freezing of a subtype]}
At the place where a subtype is frozen,
its type is frozen.
@@ -6663,7 +6664,9 @@
@PDefn2{Term=[freezing],
Sec=(first subtype caused by the freezing of the type)}
At the place where a type is frozen, any expressions or @nt<name>s within
-the full type definition cause freezing;
+the full type definition cause
+freezing@Chg{Version=[5],New=[, other than those that occur within an
+@nt{access_type_definition} or an @nt{access_definition}],Old=[]};
the first subtype, and
any component subtypes,
index subtypes, and parent subtype
@@ -7105,5 +7108,13 @@
@RefSecNum{Incomplete Type Declarations}). This matches the original intent
(see @MetaRulesTitle above) and eliminates whack-a-mole trying to allow such
freezing without it having (almost) any effects.]}
+
+ @ChgRef{Version=[5],Kind=[AddedNormal],ARef=[AI12-0186-1]}
+ @ChgAdded{Version=[5],Text=[@b<Correction:> Clarified that the subtype names
+ in an access type are not frozen at the point of the type declaration. This
+ has always been true (there is an Ada 95-era AARM note that says so) but
+ it didn't follow from the actual wording. Since the ACATS requires the
+ AARM note to be true, no compiler could actually get this wrong, so no
+ incompatibility is possible.]}
@end{DiffWord2012}
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent