From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Jun 12 15:41:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dmo5 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dmo5@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id ACCB61DA93; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:41:38 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066A31B127 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:41:35 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from EXCH-GW.ms.rose-hulman.edu (exch-gw.rose-hulman.edu [137.112.8.200]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id k5CDexDM039584 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2006 15:41:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from north@rose-hulman.edu) Received: from EVS1.ms.rose-hulman.edu ([137.112.8.201]) by EXCH-GW.ms.rose-hulman.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:38:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C68E25.82A6E895" Subject: RE: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3384) WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:36:25 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3384) WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2 Thread-Index: AcaKCxIBwngjtQQ9R06hLTR9vJcY2gEGiFcy References: <20060607081321.E9A6C1B53D@open-std.org> From: "North, Mallory" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jun 2006 13:38:38.0697 (UTC) FILETIME=[82DB1D90:01C68E25] X-Spam-Score: 0.851 () HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68E25.82A6E895 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John: =20 I vote "yes" on Corrigendum 2. =20 Mallory North =20 ________________________________ From: j3-bounces@webmail.rose-hulman.edu on behalf of John Reid Sent: Wed 6/7/2006 3:10 AM To: WG5 Subject: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3384) WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2 ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1661 WG5 letter ballot on N1660, Second Draft Technical Corrigendum 2 John Reid, 6 June 2006 At meeting #176 {May-2006 in Las Vegas}, J3 accepted all of the = suggestions in the notes in N1659, the first Draft Technical Corrigendum 2. Malcolm = Cohen had some editorial revisions that Stan Whitlock as head of J3/interp = agreed to also. David and I think these are improvements and David has prepared N1660 to include them (apart from a minor word change re the placement = of an edit in the standard). The new changes are not in 06-006t2.txt, but if = this vote passes, Stan will prepare 06-006t3.txt to reflect them. The new changes are very minor, but to send N1660 to SC22 now would = break our rules for processing interpretations. We have been meticulous in the = past about using our two-stage voting process to avoid controversy over = corrigenda. For this reason, I am holding a WG5 letter ballot on N1660. Relative to N1659, the changes are: - All notes except the top one have been removed. - 4.4.4.1: the change suggested in N1658 was accepted by J3. - 4.5.5.2: the change suggested in N1659 was accepted by J3; Malcolm suggested these improvements: In the first line of the fourth paragraph of the subclause, (a) after the first "structure constructor" insert "or array constructor" (b) delete the second" structure". The fourth paragraph of the subclause [59:27-28] will read: If an executable construct references a structure constructor = or array constructor, the entity created by the constructor is finalized after execution of the innermost executable = construct containing the reference. In the new sixth paragraph introduced by TC1, do the same = change. The new sixth paragraph [59:30+] will read: If a specification expression in a scoping unit references a structure constructor or an array constructor, the entity = created by the constructor is finalized before execution of the = executable constructs in the scoping unit. - 8.1.5 - the subclause reference should be 8.1.5.1. - 9.5.1.3 - Malcolm suggested slightly different edits. - 9.5.3.7.1 - Stan suggested that the directions for this edit read: "... add the following after the first item ..." This edit suggested in N1658 was accepted by J3 with the phrase "input/output". - 10.10.1.3 - Malcolm suggests the following rewording to comply with = the WG5 comment: {Replace the first edit to avoid "separated by a separator"; = since a separator is allowed to be contiguous blanks or a slash, and = we do not want to allow either of those.} [244:29] Change "a comma" to "a comma (if the decimal edit mode is POINT) or a semicolon (if the decimal edit mode is COMMA)," ................................. cut = ...................................... Vote on N1660 (anyone may vote): Yes Yes, with the following comment No, for the following reasons Please select one of these and send it to sc22wg5@dkuug.dk by 8 a.m (UK time) on Friday, 7 July 2006. Thanks, John. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68E25.82A6E895 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= =0A= (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3384) WG5 Vote on Corrigendum 2=0A= =0A= =0A=
=0A=
John:
=0A=
 
=0A=
I vote "yes" on = Corrigendum =0A= 2.
=0A=
 
=0A=
Mallory = North
=0A=
 
=0A=

=0A=
=0A= From: = j3-bounces@webmail.rose-hulman.edu on =0A= behalf of John Reid
Sent: Wed 6/7/2006 3:10 AM
To: =0A= WG5
Subject: (j3.2005) (SC22WG5.3384) WG5 Vote on Corrigendum =0A= 2

=0A=
=0A=

          &nbs= p;            = ;            =         =0A= ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1661

       = WG5 =0A= letter ballot on N1660, Second Draft Technical Corrigendum =0A= 2
           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;  =0A= John Reid, 6 June 2006


At meeting #176 {May-2006 in Las = Vegas}, J3 =0A= accepted all of the suggestions
in the notes in N1659, the first = Draft =0A= Technical Corrigendum 2. Malcolm Cohen
had some editorial revisions = that Stan =0A= Whitlock as head of J3/interp agreed
to also. David and I think these = are =0A= improvements and David has prepared
N1660 to include them (apart from = a minor =0A= word change re the placement of an
edit in the standard). The new = changes are =0A= not in 06-006t2.txt, but if this
vote passes, Stan will prepare = 06-006t3.txt =0A= to reflect them.

The new changes are very minor, but to send = N1660 to =0A= SC22 now would break our
rules for processing interpretations. We = have been =0A= meticulous in the past
about using our two-stage voting process to = avoid =0A= controversy over corrigenda.
For this reason, I am holding a WG5 = letter =0A= ballot on N1660.


  Relative to N1659, the changes = are:

- =0A= All notes except the top one have been removed.

- 4.4.4.1: the = change =0A= suggested in N1658 was accepted by J3.

- 4.5.5.2:  the = change =0A= suggested in N1659 was accepted by J3;  =0A= Malcolm
      suggested these =0A= improvements:

        In the = first =0A= line of the fourth paragraph of the =0A= subclause,
        (a) after the = first =0A= "structure constructor" insert "or =0A= array
            =0A= constructor"
        (b) delete = the =0A= second" structure".

        =   The =0A= fourth paragraph of the subclause [59:27-28] will =0A= read:

           If = an =0A= executable construct references a structure constructor =0A= or
          array = constructor, =0A= the entity created by the constructor =0A= is
          finalized = after =0A= execution of the innermost executable =0A= construct
          = containing =0A= the reference.

        In the = new =0A= sixth paragraph introduced by TC1, do the same =0A= change.

           = The new =0A= sixth paragraph [59:30+] will =0A= read:

        =     If a =0A= specification expression in a scoping unit references =0A= a
           = structure =0A= constructor or an array constructor, the entity =0A= created
           = by the =0A= constructor is finalized before execution of the =0A= executable
        =     =0A= constructs in the scoping unit.


- 8.1.5 - the subclause = reference =0A= should be 8.1.5.1.

- 9.5.1.3 - Malcolm suggested slightly = different =0A= edits.

- 9.5.3.7.1 - Stan suggested that the directions for this = edit =0A= read:

        "... add the = following =0A= after the first item ..."

      This = edit =0A= suggested in N1658 was accepted by J3 with the =0A= phrase
      "input/output".

- = 10.10.1.3 - =0A= Malcolm suggests the following rewording to comply with =0A= the
      WG5 =0A= comment:

        {Replace the = first =0A= edit to avoid "separated by a separator"; since
  =0A=       a separator is allowed to be contiguous = blanks or =0A= a slash, and we
        do not want to = allow =0A= either of those.}

        =   =0A= [244:29] Change "a comma" = to
        =0A=            "a comma = (if the =0A= decimal edit mode is POINT) or = a
        =0A=             = semicolon (if =0A= the decimal edit mode is = COMMA),"


................................. =0A= cut ......................................

Vote on N1660 (anyone = may =0A= vote):

Yes

Yes, with the following comment

No, for = the =0A= following reasons


Please select one of these and send it =0A= to

         =0A= sc22wg5@dkuug.dk

by 8 a.m (UK time) on Friday, 7 July =0A= 2006.

Thanks,

John.

=0A= =0A= =0A= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68E25.82A6E895--