PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

[Rex Jaeschke]

See my replies inline. Rex


-----Original Message-----
From: caroline arms [mailto:caroline.arms at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Rex Jaeschke <rex at rexjaeschke.com>
Cc: SC 34 WG4 <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>; TC45 <e-TC45 at ecma-international.org>
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Drafts of 29500-1/-4:2016; feedback due by the end of 2016-04-29

Rex,

Continuing with Cor 1 against Part 1 draft

Item 152.

Part 1,  18.17.7.260,  PROB 

An "is" was added in error (i.e., not reflecting Cor 1) to the second bullet -- the condition for the "sum of the values".  However, the correction in Cor 1 to this bullet is clearly wrong, because
  If the sum of the values in probability-range <> 1, makes no mathematical/logical sense.

I believe the "<" should be deleted.   Then the condition makes
logical and mathematical sense and clearly would represent an error condition for this function.

Rex> Agreed. I'll remove both occurrences of "is". 

Re "<>", that is correct; it is the not-equal operator (as described in 18.17.2.2).



Looking at "legislative" history:
>>>>
The relevant DR is DR 14-0003.  At the top of the DR, I see "[Ed. The list of issues and their proposed fixes are documented in the file  Proposed changes for DR-14-0003  attached to mail of the same name, posted on 2014-05-11.] "

But I don't find that message at
http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/2014-May/date.html
This makes me think that the mail was not to the WG4 list.  I don't
find anything in my own mail backup.   I'm assuming Rex embedded the
content as is into the DR.  The DR was discussed and approved at a face-to-face in June 2014.

The content of Cor 1 for this change is the same as in the DR document.
>>>>

So there is nothing to suggest that this error was introduced in the editorial process of applying Cor 1 to the current draft.  I suspect that it simply escaped the notice of any (MS experts or WG4 members) who reviewed the solution for DR 14-0003 after MS experts provided Chris with the relevant information.

Aside, I think the "is" added to the first bullet is unnecessary, because it is implied in the = symbol.  In general, there is no "is"
in similar conditions in 18.17.7.

Bottom line on item 152 in Cor 1:
*   Not correctly reflected in Part 1 draft
*   Incorrect substance -- does this need new DR?

    Caroline (hoping not to find more nits like this one!!)