CVS difference for ai22s/ai22-0011-1.txt

--- ai22s/ai22-0011-1.txt	2021/11/19 07:42:35	1.3
+++ ai22s/ai22-0011-1.txt	2021/11/20 07:49:18	1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-!standard 4.5.10(18/5)                                     21-11-18  AI22-0011-1/02
+!standard 4.5.10(18/5)                                     21-11-19  AI22-0011-1/03
 !standard 4.5.10(24/5)
 !standard 4.5.10(25/5)
 !standard 4.5.10(27/5)
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
 Modify 4.5.10(25/5):
 
    If the value_sequence does not have the reserved word parallel, each value
-   of the value_sequence is {converted to subtype Accum_Type and then} passed,
+   of the value_sequence is {converted to subtype Value_Type and then} passed,
    in order, as the second (Value) parameter to a call on Reducer, with the first
    (Accumulator) parameter being the prior value of the accumulator, saving the
    result as the new value of the accumulator. The reduction expression yields
@@ -83,11 +83,11 @@
 
    Each logical thread of control creates a local accumulator for processing
    its subsequence. The accumulator for a subsequence is initialized to the
-   first value of the subsequence, {converted to subtype Accum_Type,} and
-   calls on Reducer start with the second value of the subsequence (if any).
-   The result for the subsequence is the final value of its local accumulator.
+   {result of converting the} first value of the subsequence {to subtype
+   Accum_Type}, and calls on Reducer start with the second value of the 
+   subsequence (if any). The result for the subsequence is the final value
+   of its local accumulator.
 
-
 Replace RM 4.5.10(29/5)
    If the evaluation of the value_sequence yields an empty sequence of values,
    the reduction expression yields the initial value.
@@ -744,5 +744,28 @@
 anonymous access, and that cannot match. Still, it's probably best to just say
 that is illegal, and then we don't have to come up with arguments as to why it
 is not allowed.
+
+****************************************************************
+
+Editor's note: We have a couple of Editorial Review fixes to the wording as
+approved by ARG meeting #62M.
+
+First, the wording of 4.3.5(27/5) adds an additional comma, which makes
+parsing the sentence hard (and possibly ambiguous). We rearrange the words
+to avoid introducing a comma. From:
+
+   The accumulator for a subsequence is initialized to the
+   first value of the subsequence, { converted to Accum_Subtype,} and
+
+to:
+
+   The accumulator for a subsequence is initialized to the {result of 
+   converting the} first value of the subsequence {to Accum_Subtype}, and 
+
+Second, 4.3.5(25/5) converts a value to Accum_Subtype and passes it to the
+second (value) parameter of the Reducer. The problem here is that second
+parameter has Value_Subtype, not Accum_Subtype. For a reducer without the
+parallel keyword, these don't even need to be the same type, so the existing
+wording makes no sense. Replacing Accum_Subtype with Value_Subtype fixes that.
 
 ****************************************************************