4 June 2006 J3/06-188 Sub ject: Comments on and related to Clause 2 From: Van Snyder 1 Edits Edits refer to 06-007. Page and line numbers are displayed in the margin. Absent other instructions, a page and line number or line number range implies all of the indicated text is to be replaced by associated text, while a page and line number followed by + (-) indicates that associated text is to be inserted after (before) the indicated line. Remarks are noted in the margin, or appear between [ and ] in the text. [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].] [14:1+]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Does 2.3 need a new 2.3.1 for its first paragraph?] [14:2]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [The first sentence of 2.3 belongs in 2.3.1; put it at [14:6], making it the first sentence.] [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.] [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.] [15:Table 2.2]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Two possibilities: Editor: insert "2" after "note" in the "Misc. decls" row, or delete Table 2.2.] [15:3-4]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [The syntax only allows a program unit . . . to have one statement. Delete the sentence that begins "Each program unit. . . ."] [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. [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".] [36:3-4]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete ", . . . ".] [36:6-7]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete ", an . . . " and figure out why the hanging 4 June 2006 Page 1 of 2 4 June 2006 J3/06-188 indentation for the constraint didn't work.] [177:12-13]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete ", . . . ".] [186:10,23]----------------------------------------------------------------------- [Editor: Delete "an . . . ," twice.] 4 June 2006 Page 2 of 2