J3/06-188r1 To: J3 From: Stan Whitlock Subject: Comments on and related to Clause 2 Date: 17-Aug-2006 Group A recommendations are preceded by ">>" below. 1. [11:22-24,50-51, 14:9]--------------------------------------------------- [The only reason to have be part of , and then have constraint C201, is to be able to say at [14:8-9] "The executable statements are all of those that make up the syntactic class . It would be simpler to remove the otherwise unused syntax rules and remove or simplify the six (!) constraints that prevent their application, and simply list the syntax terms in the description of executable statements. Editor: Delete from and delete C201. Then add ", plus , and " at the end of [13:26].] >> Group A disagrees - edit not made 2. [14:1+]---------------------------------------------------------------- [Does 2.3 need a new 2.3.1 for its first paragraph?] >> No - edit not made 3. [14:2]---------------------------------------------------------------- [The first sentence of 2.3 belongs in 2.3.1; put it at [14:6], making it the first sentence.] >> Group A disagrees - edit not made 3. [14:3-4]-------------------------------------------------------------- [The second sentence of 2.3 duplicates the first sentence of 2.3.2. Delete it. Thereby, 2.3 becomes empty so a new 2.3.1 becomes unnecessary.] >> Group A disagrees - edit not made 4. [14:2-15:1-]------------------------------------------------------------ [Subclause 2.3.2 has nothing to do with Execution concepts. It belongs at [12:2+], and probably not as a separate subclause.] >> Group A disagrees - edit not made 5. [15:Table 2.2]-------------------------------------------------------- [Two possibilities: Editor: insert "2" after "note" in the "Misc. decls" row, or delete Table 2.2.] >> Edit: [15:table 2.2] change "(see note)" to "(see note 1)" 6. [15:3-4]-------------------------------------------------------------- [The syntax only allows a program unit . . . to have one statement. Delete the sentence that begins "Each program unit. . . ."] >> Group A disagrees - edit not made 7. [15:13-14, 21+]------------------------------------------------------- [Subclause 2.3.4 Execution sequence doesn't account for specification expressions. Editor: "invoked, execution begins with" => "invoked, the specification expressions within the of the invoked procedure, if any, are evaluated in a processor dependent order. Thereafter, execution proceeds to". Then insert the following item into the enumerated list:] (2a) Execution of a BLOCK construct causes any specification expressions within the of the construct to be evaluated in a processor dependent order. Thereafter, execution proceeds to the first executable construct within the BLOCK construct. >> Edit: [15:13-14]change "invoked, execution begins with" to "invoked, >> the specification expressions within the of the >> invoked procedure, if any, are evaluated in a processor dependent >> order. Thereafter, execution proceeds to". >> Edit: [15:21+] insert the following item into the enumerated list: >> (2a) Execution of a BLOCK construct causes any specification expressions >> within the of the construct to be evaluated >> in a processor dependent order. Thereafter, execution proceeds to >> the first executable construct within the BLOCK construct. 8. [19:35-36]---------------------------------------------------------- [The phrase "is a named variable that is a local entity of the scoping unit" is inadequate given local declarations in BLOCK constructs, since BLOCK constructs are not scoping units and therefore variables declared within a BLOCK construct are "local entities of the scoping unit" in which the BLOCK appears. Replace it by "is a named variable that is declared implicitly (5.3) within the scoping unit or is declared explicitly within the of the scoping unit".] >> "named local variable of a BLOCK construct" on [20:1-2] solves the >> problem - edit not made 9. [36:3-4]-------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete ", . . . ".] 10. [36:6-7]---------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete ", an . . . " and figure out why the hanging indentation for the constraint didn't work.] 11. [177:12-13]---------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete ", . . . ".] 12. [186:10,23]----------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete "an . . . ," twice.] >> Do not make the edits in 9 through 12 since section 1 above was not done. >> Editor: please note on [36:6-7], the hanging indentation for the >> constraint didn't work.