From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Feb 8 01:15:57 2016 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 0833D358720; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:15:57 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83DE1356ADA for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 01:15:52 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 91312 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2016 09:15:48 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO FujiMaru10) (216.241.51.146) by 0 with SMTP; 8 Feb 2016 09:15:48 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" Subject: Even more comments on draft Corrigendum 4 Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:15:58 +0900 Organization: NAG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0150_01D16251.5237D9C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0150_01D16251.5237D9C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (19) I note that some of the requirements are expressed in a fairly = woolly way. E.g. the ones added by interp F08/0113 should be worded so = that it is more obvious that it is the lock-variable and stat-variable = in the same (LOCK or UNLOCK) statement, not (e.g.) the lock-variable = from a LOCK statement and a stat-variable from a DEALLOCATE statement. Yes, it=E2=80=99s clear from context that that is what is being meant, = so I think this is not really a problem for the corrigendum per se = (especially since similar woolly wording already appears elsewhere), but = I think that when I apply the corrigendum to the 007 I should try to = reword them. (20) The edits for F08/0110 need to be pulled (see previous message), = but anyway, the edit instructions refer to the =E2=80=9Cfifth paragraph, = provided by Technical Corrigendum 2=E2=80=9D, but in fact the fifth = paragraph was NOT =E2=80=9Cprovided=E2=80=9D by corrigendum 2, but = merely edited by it. So those instructions should be =E2=80=9Cfifth = paragraph, as edited by Technical Corrigendum 2=E2=80=9D (or = =E2=80=9Cafter applying the changes in ...=E2=80=9D, which phrasing you = used elsewhere). (21) In the edit for F08/0132 at [281:25-28], I think it would be = better to omit the noninitial indefinite articles in the first part of = the edit, i.e. it would be better as =E2=80=9Cor a dummy procedure=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93> =E2=80=9C, dummy = procedure, or procedure pointer=E2=80=9D. (22) Same edit, the editing instructions say to make a double comma, as = the comma following the =E2=80=9C; otherwise=E2=80=9D is not deleted but = it says to insert one at the end of the insertion, thus producing = =E2=80=9C...procedure pointer,, it...=E2=80=9D. Delete the comma at the = end of the last insertion. (23) Same edit, I find =E2=80=9Cis not a DP and is not a PP=E2=80=9D = slightly clumsy. Either =E2=80=9Cis not a DP or PP=E2=80=9D or = =E2=80=9Cis neither a DP nor a PP=E2=80=9D would be better =E2=80=93 I = think I prefer =E2=80=9Cis not a DP or PP=E2=80=9D. (24) In the edits for F08/0117 at [300:14] and [300:22], these result in = the unfortunate construction =E2=80=9Cother than an array section with a = vector subscript or coindexed object=E2=80=9D. Yes, one can eventually = work out that an array section cannot =E2=80=9Chave=E2=80=9D a coindexed = object, and that therefore the disjunction applies to the =E2=80=9Cother = than=E2=80=9D, but it certainly sounds confusingly weird. Better to = make that =E2=80=9Cother than a coindexed object or an array section = with a vector subscript=E2=80=9D, i.e. the edits should be after =E2=80=9Ctarget other than=E2=80=9D insert =E2=80=9Ca coindexed = object or=E2=80=9D (twice). (25) In the edit for F08/0109 at [399:17], change =E2=80=9CLOCK = TYPE=E2=80=9D to =E2=80=9CLOCK_TYPE=E2=80=9D (space to underscore). (26) It does not matter for the Corrigendum, but I note that the effect = of the edit for F08/0116 at [436:16-19] will have dashes rather than = bullets for the nested bullet list. (27) Similarly the Corrigendum is ok, but I note the edit for F08/0120 = at [440:4] could be slightly more simply described as: after = =E2=80=9Cnamed constants,=E2=80=9D insert =E2=80=9Cnamed procedure = pointers,=E2=80=9D. And that=E2=80=99s all folks, I got to the end. Sorry for the delay. Cheers, --=20 ..............................Malcolm. ------=_NextPart_000_0150_01D16251.5237D9C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
(19) I note that some of the requirements are expressed in a fairly = woolly=20 way.  E.g. the ones added by interp F08/0113 should be worded so = that it is=20 more obvious that it is the lock-variable and stat-variable in the same = (LOCK or=20 UNLOCK) statement, not (e.g.) the lock-variable from a LOCK statement = and a=20 stat-variable from a DEALLOCATE statement.
 
Yes, it=E2=80=99s clear from context that that is what is being = meant, so I think=20 this is not really a problem for the corrigendum per se (especially = since=20 similar woolly wording already appears elsewhere), but I think that when = I apply=20 the corrigendum to the 007 I should try to reword them.
 
(20) The edits for F08/0110 need to be pulled (see previous = message), but=20 anyway, the edit instructions refer to the =E2=80=9Cfifth paragraph, = provided by=20 Technical Corrigendum 2=E2=80=9D, but in fact the fifth paragraph was = NOT =E2=80=9Cprovided=E2=80=9D by=20 corrigendum 2, but merely edited by it.  So those instructions = should be=20 =E2=80=9Cfifth paragraph, as edited by Technical Corrigendum 2=E2=80=9D = (or =E2=80=9Cafter applying the=20 changes in ...=E2=80=9D, which phrasing you used elsewhere).
 
(21) In the edit for F08/0132 at [281:25-28],  I think it = would be=20 better to omit the noninitial indefinite articles in the first part of = the edit,=20 i.e. it would be better as
   =E2=80=9Cor a dummy procedure=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93> = =E2=80=9C, dummy procedure, or procedure=20 pointer=E2=80=9D.
 
(22) Same edit, the editing instructions say to make a double = comma, as the=20 comma following the =E2=80=9C; otherwise=E2=80=9D is not deleted but it = says to insert one at=20 the end of the insertion, thus producing =E2=80=9C...procedure pointer,, = it...=E2=80=9D. =20 Delete the comma at the end of the last insertion.
 
(23) Same edit, I find =E2=80=9Cis not a DP and is not a = PP=E2=80=9D slightly clumsy. =20 Either =E2=80=9Cis not a DP or PP=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cis neither a DP = nor a PP=E2=80=9D would be better =E2=80=93 I=20 think I prefer =E2=80=9Cis not a DP or PP=E2=80=9D.
 
(24) In the edits for F08/0117 at [300:14] and [300:22], these = result in=20 the unfortunate construction =E2=80=9Cother than an array section with a = vector=20 subscript or coindexed object=E2=80=9D.  Yes, one can eventually = work out that an=20 array section cannot =E2=80=9Chave=E2=80=9D a coindexed object, and that = therefore the=20 disjunction applies to the =E2=80=9Cother than=E2=80=9D, but it = certainly sounds confusingly=20 weird.  Better to make that =E2=80=9Cother than a coindexed object = or an array=20 section with a vector subscript=E2=80=9D, i.e. the edits should be
   after =E2=80=9Ctarget other than=E2=80=9D insert = =E2=80=9Ca coindexed object or=E2=80=9D=20 (twice).
 
(25) In the edit for F08/0109 at [399:17], change =E2=80=9CLOCK = TYPE=E2=80=9D to=20 =E2=80=9CLOCK_TYPE=E2=80=9D (space to underscore).
 
(26) It does not matter for the Corrigendum, but I note that the = effect of=20 the edit for F08/0116 at [436:16-19] will have dashes rather than = bullets for=20 the nested bullet list.
 
(27) Similarly the Corrigendum is ok, but I note the edit for = F08/0120 at=20 [440:4] could be slightly more simply described as: after =E2=80=9Cnamed = constants,=E2=80=9D=20 insert =E2=80=9Cnamed procedure pointers,=E2=80=9D.
 
And that=E2=80=99s all folks, I got to the end.  Sorry for the = delay.
 
Cheers,
--
..............................Malcolm.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0150_01D16251.5237D9C0--