(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5602) Revised ballot on draft Corrigendum 4

[John Reid]

I would like to replace my previous vote by the following:

I vote 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes:

In the paragraph introduced in subclause 6.7.1.2 at [128:15-17], 
"non-stopped" should be inserted between "all" and "images" at the end 
of the final sentence.
In the paragraph introduced in subclause 6.7.3.2 at [131:16-19],
"non-stopped" should be inserted between "all" and "images" at the end 
of the final sentence.
[Modifications of two of Van's changes. The versions in N2088 are as 
approved by WG5 (see N2062 and N2080). However, I agree that Van's 
changes are desirable, but with a hyphen for consistency.]

In the first line of NOTE 9.64a, change the final ASCII quotation mark 
to a typeset final quotation mark.
[One of Van's changes - a minor editing glitch in constructing the draft 
corrigendum.]

In both instructions for the revision in subclause 14.10 at [408:1-]
insert comma before "Table 14.1" and "Table 14.2".
[A modification of one of Van's changes - a minor editing glitch in 
constructing the draft corrigendum.]

I would like to comment on Van's other changes:

The number of the constraint introduced at [127:9+] should be C642a.
[This was suggested by David in his vote on the interps, so is already 
"in play".]

In the paragraph introduced in subclause 8.5.4 at [190:16-], replace
"The value of <image-set>" with "If <image-set> is not an asterisk, its
value" because it doesn't have a value if it is an asterisk.
[The version in N2088 is as approved by WG5 (see N2042 and N2047). I 
think the sentence is OK because its effect is null if <image-set> is an 
asterisk.]

In the paragraph revised in subclause 9.12 at [243:6-7], delete "the"
before "<io-implied-do> processing" because there might be more than one
<io-implied-do> in the statement.
[The version in N2088 is as approved by WG5 (see N2062 and N2080). I 
think the sentence is OK because it talks of "<io-implied-do> 
processing" which can cover more than one <io-implied-do>.]

In the first line of NOTE 9.64a, replace "denotation"; with
"denotation;".
[The version in N2088 is as approved by WG5 (see N2062 and N2080). Van 
wants to apply the US rule, which conflicts with ISO practice. See, for 
example, 23:3 in J3/10-007r1.]

I would also like to comment on Malcolm's vote.

Based on comments already make, the corrigendum is clearly going to look 
substantially different from this.  I cannot vote in favour of text I 
have not seen.
[Only one vote so far on the interps affects the corrigendum. This is 
David's and his change is very minor. Van has done what is intended at 
this stage, which is to check the draft corrigendum carefully. His 
changes are all minor and his vote is a YES.]

Cheers,

John.