To: J3                                                     J3/18-229
From: Malcolm Cohen
Subject: Many editorial country comments
Date: 2018-June-14


1. Introduction

Many comments suggested merging some paragraphs.
The responses per comment appear below.


2. Responses

US081 ["Introduction", page xx]
      Merge paragraphs 3 and 4.

Declined.  The text is fine as is.

US004 [4.1.3, "Assumed syntax rules", page 28]
      Merge paragraphs 1 and 2.

Accepted with modification.

At the end of paragraph 1,
after "rules" insert
  ", where the letters \sinr{xyz} stand for any syntactic class phrase,"
At the beginning of paragraph 2,
delete "The letters... phrase.".

US005 [4.2, "Conformance", page 29]
      Merge paragraphs 2 and 3.

Declined.  The text is correct as is.

US006 [7.4.4.4, "Collating sequence", pages 67 and 68]
      Merge paragraphs 2 and 3.

Declined.  The text is correct as is.

US015 [10.1.6.1, "Definitions", page 160]
      Merge paragraphs 2 and 3.

Declined.  Paragraph 3 is not related to how or whether
    "a function defines the unary operation"
but is an additional requirement on its usage.
As such, it is clearer stated separately.

US016 [10.1.6.1, "Definitions", pages 160 and 161]
      Merge paragraphs 5 and 6.

Declined.  Paragraph 6 is not related to how or whether
    "a function defines the binary operation"
but is an additional requirement on its usage.
As such, it is clearer stated separately.

US017 [10.1.9.2, "Type, type parameters, and shape of a primary",
       pages 162 and 163]
      Merge paragraphs 3 and 4.

Accepted with modification.

Page 162-163,
Turn the list in paragraph 3 into plain text, and append paragraph 4.

GB010 and US012 [10.1.11, "Specification expression", page 164]
                Merge paragraphs 2 and 3.
                "This is the case where a sentence is split across two
                paragraphs."

Accepted as is.

US018 [10.2.1.4, "Defined assignment statement", pages 170 and 171]
      Merge paragraphs 2 and 3.

Declined.  Paragraph 3 is not about how or whether
    "a subroutine defines the defined assignment"
but is an additional requirement on its usage.
As such, it is clearer stated separately.

US019 [10.2.3.2, "interpretation of masked array assignments", page 176]
      Merge paragraphs 3 and 4.
      "The paragraph break makes the reference "/mask-expression/"
       ambiguous.  Without the paragraph break, there is no
       ambiguity."

Accepted with modification.  In fact this sentence (and another in p1)
are ambiguous w.r.t. how many times the mask-expr is evaluated when the
construct is executed more than once.

Page 176, 10.2.3.2 Interpretation of masked array assignments,
In p1, Delete "The mask-expr is evaluated only once."
After p1, insert new paragraph
  "The \si{mask-expr} in a WHERE statement, WHERE construct statement, or
   masked ELSEWHERE statement, is evaluated at most once per execution of
   the statement."
Delete p4 "The mask-expr is evaluated at most once."

US022 [11.1.9.2, "Execution of a SELECT CASE construct", page 197]
      Merge paragraphs 1 and 2.

Declined.  The text is correct as is.

US031 [13.7.2.3.3, "E and D editing", pages 273 and 274]
      Merge paragraphs 4 and 5.

Declined.  The text is correct as is, and this is not an improvement.
Instead,
    Delete "The sign in the exponent is produced."
    because this is redundant with Table 13.1,
    and move the remaining sentence of p5 into the footnote of Table 13.1.
The editor should widen the Table if that will improve its appearance.

US032 [13.7.2.3.4, "EN editing", pages 274 and 275]
      Merge paragraphs 5 and 6.

Declined.  The text is correct as is, and this is not an improvement.
Instead,
    Delete "The sign in the exponent is produced."
    because this is redundant with Table 13.2,
    and move the remaining sentence of p6 into the footnote of Table 13.2.
The editor should widen the Table if that will improve its appearance.

US033 [13.7.2.3.5, "ES editing", pages 275 and 276]
      Merge paragraphs 5 and 6.

Declined.  The text is correct as is, and this is not an improvement.
Instead,
    Delete "The sign in the exponent is produced."
    because this is redundant with Table 13.3,
    and move the remaining sentence of p5 into the footnote of Table 13.3.
The editor should widen the Table if that will improve its appearance.

US034 [13.7.2.3.6, "EX editiing", page 276
      Merge paragraphs 5 and 6.

Declined.  The text is correct as is, and this is not an improvement.
Instead,
    Delete "The sign in the exponent is produced." because this is
    redundant with p5 (the sign of the exponent not being an optional
    part of the output field form).
    Move the remaining sentence of p6,
    appending it to the final bullet of p5.

===END===