To: J3 J3/10-121 From: Van Snyder Subject: More misc. editorial comments Date: 2010 February 02 References: 10-103, 10-104 Edits In addition to those in 10-103: -------------------------------------- [312:5-6] "" -> "primaries" or use \emph instead of \si or \st. Or "The " -> "each " so we don't invent a new syntax term to confuse the index and Annex D and put the rest of the sentence in singular instead of plural: "constants" -> "a constant", "references to variables, references to functions, and intrinsic operations" -> "a reference to a variable, or a reference to a function". Intrinsic operations aren't primaries, so what is that part of the sentence about? Should it be "and all operations shall be intrinsic operations"? [582] delete "notify_stmt" and "primaries" lines [583] delete "query_stmt" line Edits to 10-104, and in addition to those in 10-104: ---------------------------------------------------- In [65:14] the names 10-104 says should be changed to lower case should be set in "code font". In 10-104, the second [146:18] should be [146:34], and [417:16] should be [419:16]. In [390:29], the replacement text should probably be "e_\text{min}" so as to use text spacing rules instead of math spacing rules, or maybe "e_ \min", since \min is a TeX operator that gets set with text spacing rules. In [491:31], ''' at the beginning of the string should go to '{''} and ''' at the end should go to {''}'. TeX doesn't always "do the right thing" with ". Not in 10-104, but found while studying 10-104: Should "4.5.2" be "4.5.5" at [82:13] and [311:29] as well? Should "4.5.2" at [50:4] be "4.5.3"? Should "4.5.2" at [114:34] be "4.5.2.3"? Should "4.5.2" be "4.5.2.1" at [453:10]? "4.5.2" is clearly wrong at [472:18]. It should be "4.5.4.4, 5.3.14". Comment without edits: ---------------------- In my comment on interp F03/0139, I noted that F03 needs, at [04-007:415:22+] (8) The pointer is a function result and the function is invoked. It also needs (9) The pointer is an ultimate component of an object, default initialization is not specified for the component, the object is a function result, and the function is invoked. but probably in the opposite order to correspond to items (6) and (7) in the existing list. This would need, however, to be done in a context different from F03/0139, which wasn't about this topic. 09-007r3 needs these kinds of things too at [450:33+]. Would this be a taboo technical change?