J3/13-311r2
To: J3
From: Van Snyder & Malcolm Cohen
Subject: Editorial wording improvement
Date: 2013 October 17
Reference: 13-211r1

1. Introduction
---------------

The wording in 5.3.4p4 and 5.3.19p2 permitting an object to have the
ASYNCHRONOUS or VOLATILE attribute within a BLOCK construct scoping unit
might be confusing if there is some other requirement that prohibits the
object from having the attribute.


2. Edits to 10-007r1
--------------------

{Avoid even the appearance of giving permission.}

[90:21-23] Replace sentence "Within ... construct." with
  "If an object that is not a local variable of a BLOCK construct is
   specified to have the ASYNCHRONOUS attribute in the <specification-part>
   of the construct, the object has the attribute within the construct even
   if it does not have the attribute outside the construct.".

[102:14-16] Replace sentence "Within ... construct." with
  "If an object that is not a local variable of a BLOCK construct is
   specified to have the VOLATILE attribute in the <specification-part> of
   the construct, the object has the attribute within the construct even if
   it does not have the attribute outside the construct.".


3. No wart removal
------------------

The claim in 13-311 that the VOLATILE VALUE proposal was not added to
13-244r1 is mistaken; it was US proposal 11 in that paper.

The further claim that it was "therefore not taken up at Delft" is also
mistaken, as the entire WG5 committee explicitly voted to defer
consideration of US-11 along with many other proposals: that vote passed
without any dissent.

===END===