From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Tue Dec 14 18:48:12 1993
Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA01928
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Wed, 15 Dec 1993 10:38:57 +0100
Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP;
   Tue, 14 Dec 93 18:50:42 GMT
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) 
          id <24794-0@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>; Tue, 14 Dec 1993 18:48:18 +0000
Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07376;
          Tue, 14 Dec 93 18:48:12 GMT
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 93 18:48:12 GMT
From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid)
Message-Id: <9312141848.AA07376@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: 006 vote
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29


Here are my comments as a wg5 member. I have used Janice's pro-forma.

JOhn Reid. 


000 N Reid Item 4. is indeed redundant. It is also harmless. It can wait for
           the 95 revision.
           Item 5. The revised text is very harm to understand. I suggest:
           5. Page 245, section 14.1.2.5, in the second sentence [245:3]
            change 'It' to 'Outside the type definition, it'.

087 N Reid Placing named constants in SAVE statements is surely harmless.
           Why not leave it? No reason is given for this change to the standard.

090 Y Reid For the edits, I prefer the usual form:
             after 'text' add 'new text'
           rather than the use of a dotted line.

131 Y Reid I see no need for item 6. The text of 143/46-48 is already 
           clear and unambiguous.

143 N Reid I think that it would be much better to repair the text that
           has been found to be faulty. All that is needed is
           EDIT: In 11.3.2, paragraph beginning 'The local name', first line
           [158:33]: delete 'specification'.

153 Y Reid For edit 5, the line no. should be 6.

154 N Reid I think that it is a mistake to allow zero-sized substrings in 
           equivalence. We really need to know which is the first character
           of the string and there is none. I would like simply to disallow
           them. 

155 N Reid The first three edits are appropriate for the 95 revision, 
           but are not necessary in the corrigendum. The two routes 
           through the syntax give the same result.

157 Y Reid Typo: couterintuitive

165 N Reid I agree with Bill Leonard. In view of 152:8-10, ne edit is needed.