[Cfp-interest] Comments on Introductory parts of Part 1 (and others?)

[Jim Thomas]

Willem, thank you for the review and comments. Please see below.

-Jim

On Feb 25, 2013, at 6:33 AM, Willem Wakker <willemw at ace.nl> wrote:

> Some quick comments:
> - in part 1 (and also in the other parts) the C standard is
> sometimes referred to as 'IEC 9899:2011'; this should be
> 'ISO/IEC 9899:2011'.

Ok. (The Normative references and Bibliography in the TS already are as you suggest.) This raises a question about the pervasive use IEC 60559, short for ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559, not only in the TS but also in the C standard.

The draft introductions also have IEC Technical Report 24732:2008, which is ISO/IEC Technical Report 24732:2009.

> 
> - the notion 'Suggested changes to C11' when used in running
> text sometime make the running text look strange or difficult
> to parse.
> Suggested change: in clause 2
>    a) It meets the requirements for a conforming implementation
>       of C11 with all the 'Suggested changes to C11', as
>       specified in Part 1 of this Technical Specification; and

Yes, this is clearer.

> 
> - there is some confusion in the Conformance section: it now
> contains a suggested change to C11; that should not be there.

Hmm. The section contains a specification for Part 1 conformance which entails a (suggested) change to the specification for C11 conformance. Why is the current placement inappropriate or confusing?

> I suggest the following changes:
> a- make a new clause 5 header with title 'Changes to main body
>    of C11';
> 
> b- make a new clause 5.1 header with title 'Conformance' and
>    move the current 'Suggested change to C11' from clause 2 to
>    this new clause
> 
> c- rename the current clause 5 to clause 5.2 Predefined macros
> 
> - I do not like the use of the notion 'Part 1 of this Technical
> Specification'. I am more inclined to use 'This part of Technical
> Specification 0000:20xx'. Reason: 'this part' is the thing you
> have in your hand, 'this TS' is a wider thing that you do not
> have in your hand.

Good point. Does anyone see a problem with using the words Willem suggests?

> 
> Probably similar changes need to be made to the other parts as well.
> 
> - Willem Wakker
> 
> 
> -- 
> Willem Wakker, ACE Consulting bv,
> De Ruyterkade 113, 1011 AB  Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
> Tel: +31 20 6646416, Mob: +31 625 026561, Fax: +31 20 6750389,
> mailto:willemw at ace.nl, http://www.ace.nl.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfp-interest mailing list
> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest