Date:		29 May, 2000					
To:		J3
From:		/interop
Subject:	Miscellaneous edits
References:	00-007r1, 00-192r1, 00-201


Background/analysis:

Paper 00-192r1 raises a number of potential issues.  Three of these (all on
page 57 of 00-007r1 deal with TYPEALIAS.  /interop believes the first and
third of these are integration issues, and that the second issue asks if a
clause is unnecessary.  /interop believes it is not only unnecessary, but
wrong as a circular definition results.  Edits are provided for the first
and third issues that introduced unresolved issues keyworded "Integration",
and an edit to correct the second issues.

Paper 00-201 part 2 points out typos in section 4.7, ENUMs.  Edits are
provided to correct these.

EDITS:

[57:38-39] delete ", nor the same as any other accessible <type-alias-name>
                   or derived type <type-name>.

[57:41] add "J3 internal note
             Unresolved issue 270: Integration

             <declaration-type-spec> includes "CLASS(...)".  It was not the
             intent of /interop to allow classes in TYPEALIAS statements.  Is
             the correct fix to change <declaration-type-spec> to <type-spec>?


             J3 internal note
             Unresolved issue 271: Integration

             Can a type alias name be used as the parent type name in an
             extended type declaration (probably not), or can an parent type
             of an extended type have a type alias (probably)?  Should some-
             thing be said (perhaps a constraint) to disallow a type alias
             name from being used to specify the parent type of an extended
             type?"

[59:18] change "(724)" to a section reference 7.5, "(7.5)"

[59:38] change "PARAMATER" to "PARAMETER"

[58:21,23] Add the keywords ENUM and EMUMERATOR to the index.


00-207  1/1