AI22-0003-1

!standard 4.2.1(14/5)          22-01-14 AI22-0003-1/03

!class binding interpretation 21-11-11

!status Amendment 1-2022 22-01-14

!status WG9 Approved 22-10-18

!status ARG Approved 11-0-0 21-11-18

!status work item 21-11-11

!status received 21-11-10

!submitter Stephen Baird

!priority Low

!difficulty Easy

!qualifier Error

!subject Vestigial rule about inheritance of user-defined literal aspects

!summary

Delete unneeded rule.

!issue

Consider the case of a nonabstract derived tagged type whose parent type has a specified user-defined literal aspect (for example, Integer_Literal).

We have a nice description of how aspect inheritance works in this case in 13.1(15.4/5-15.6/5). But we also have in 4.2.1(14/5) a rule:

If a nonabstract tagged type inherits any user-defined literal aspect, then each inherited aspect shall be directly specified as a nonabstract function for the type unless the inherited aspect denotes a nonabstract function, or functions, and the type is a null extension.

Recall that user-defined literal aspects are nonoverridable (4.2.1(6/5)). Thus this rule requires overriding of a nonoverridable aspect. This requirement could be satisfied via a confirming aspect specification, but it seems very odd to require an explicit confirming aspect specification.

Is this rule needed anymore? (No.)

!recommendation

(See Summary.)

!wording

Delete 4.2.1(14/5).

!discussion

4.2.1(14/5) appears to be a vestigial rule left over from an earlier model that we have since moved away from. The 13.1 rules about inheritance are all that is needed; the worse-than-redundant 4.2.1 rule should be deleted.

!corrigendum 4.2.1(14/5)

@ddel
If a nonabstract tagged type inherits any user-defined literal aspect, then
each inherited aspect shall be directly specified as a nonabstract function
for the type unless the inherited aspect denotes a nonabstract function, or
functions, and the type is a null extension.

!ACATS test

No separate ACATS test is needed; tests for the inheritance of these aspects should be enough as this is loosening a restriction.

!appendix

****************************************************************