[Cfp-interest] Comments on current documents

[Mike Cowlishaw]

Couple of follow-ups ... 

> > Notes from 2013.02.14 telecon, as promised.   These are all
> > minor/editorial and refer to the draft documents:
> > 
> >  cfp1-20121210.pdf
> >  cfp2-20121215.pdf
> >  cfp3-20130212.pdf
 
> > c) some nits in cfp3 Introduction:
> > 
> >   Page 1 line 10: ending period missing
> 
> This prompted me to look up style suggestions for bullets. I 
> believe it's ok to not punctuate bullets that are phrases or 
> fragments (not sentences).

Yes, probably a matter of style/consistency.  I always understood that the
bullets 'represent' the connecting punctuation (commas) and may represent the
colon introducing the list.  However there's no bullet at the end of the list so
the terminating period is still needed (unless the sentence continues after the
list).  Definitely nit-picking :-).


> >   line 38: "C language provides..." -> "The C language provides..."?
> >     (Or should it be "The C language specification provides."?
> 
> I think "The C language provides ." would be ok. Do you see a 
> problem with it?

The argument is that a language doesn't provide anything except a means of
describing programs etc.  But yes, it is well understood.  I don't have C11 but
it's interesting that C99 only uses "the C language" a couple of times, and in a
defferent usage. 
 
> >   line 38: refers to 'three "generic" floating formats" -- should
> >     line 29 also refer to the 128 bit format (and use the word
> >     'generic')?
> 
> Line 38 should be ". three "generic" floating types." The 
> current C standard only mentions a 128 bit floating-point 
> format as a possible format for long double. (I might not 
> understand your point.)

Just that lines 29 and 38 seemed to be inconsistent.  I suspect I'm missing a
subtlety somewhere.

Mike