Purely editorial comments: > . The proposal should be aligned to Draft3a and should say so > at the top. Yes. > > . Item h) can't be added without changing the structure of > the language > introducing this list. I have said before that we should probably > abandon the "counting" of the property forms (i.e., "There are seven > kinds of property"). Definitely. > . Throughout, semantics are --> semantics is, except in case > two or more > semantics are being referred to. Although the Random House dictionary says that 'semantics' should be used with a singular verb, the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam-Webster say that singular or plural can be used. Personally, I think that plural sounds better. > . Paragraph beginning "Like disable iff, reject_on and > accept_on expressions > can contain" ... Avoid "like". This needs to be reworked > for LRM-ease. In this case, I do not see a problem. > . "legal deployment of the operators" is unusual. I think that > > The following recursive property declaration illustrates > legal usage > of the accept_on and reject_on constructs: > > is better. Agree. Shalom -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Aug 21 06:13:50 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 21 2007 - 06:14:05 PDT