J3/16-119r1 To: J3 From: Van Snyder & Malcolm Cohen Subject: Editorial observations in Clauses 6, 9 and 10 Date: 2016 February 10 [134:32 6.7.3.2p3] Replace "any" with "every". ***Response: Text is fine as is, so no. [221:8 9.6.2.5p5] says "... the set of storage units specified by the item list or NML= specifier, plus the storage units specified by the SIZE= specifier, is defined to be the pending input/output storage sequence...." Using "plus" makes it sound like there's an arithmetic operation taking place between them. ***Response: No it does not. The word "plus" is not Copyright by the Champions of Arithmetic Ltd. Replace "plus" with "and" or "in addition to" or ...? Maybe reword the paragraph: "When an asynchronous input/output statement is executed, a pending input/output storage sequence is defined for the data transfer operation, consisting of the set of storage units specified by the item list or NML= specifier, and the storage units specified by a SIZE= specifier if it appears." ***Response: Way too much work. "plus" -> "together with" would be ok. [227:5-6 9.6.4.4p2] 9.6.4.4p2 prohibits a format specification to be in or associated with an internal file in an output statement. 9.12p3 has a blanket prohibition against any established format specification being modified in any way by an input/output statement. 9.6.4.4p2 could be deleted. ***Response: 9.12p3 only prohibits the format being associated with an internal file if it actually happens to be modified at runtime. The requirement of 9.6.4.4p2 is slightly different and allows easier detection of user errors by the processor. ***That is to say, no. [270:1+] Subclause 10.10.3 has subsubclauses that begin after initial text. Do ISO rules require an initial subsubclause? ***Response: Yes. [270:1+] 10.10.3 List-directed input, before p1, insert new heading "10.10.3.1 List-directed input forms". ===END===