Miscellaneous specification document typographical errors

[Former user]

Originally reported on Google Code with ID 55 ``` This is a catch-all issue to record specification document typographical errors that are trivial to fix and that should require no further study/analysis to resolve. Follow ups to this initial description will make note of the particular typographical errors.

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-06-27 23:01:10

[Former user]

``` In the 1.2 spec. in the keyword table at 6.2p2 UPC_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE is misspelled as UPC_MAX_BLOCKSIZE.

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-06-27 23:07:09

[Former user]

``` All typo corrections will be targeted for milestone 3.

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-06-27 23:09:17 - Labels added: Milestone-Spec-1.3

[Former user]

``` In Section 6.7.1 (page 32), both a colon and a line break are missing between "Semantics" and "1".

CURRENT: Semantics 1

CORRECT: Semantics: 1 ```

Reported by `[e-mail]` on 2012-07-02 19:13:17

[Former user]

``` In Section 7.3.2.1, in the middle of the third line of Description paragraph 9 (almost dead center of page 61). The "10" of the next paragraph is OVERLAPPING the "(dst)." which ends paragraph 9.

CURRENT (approximating overlap by using "^H" as backspace) [...] upc_phaseof(dst).^H^H^H10

CORRECT: [...] upc_phaseof(dst).

10

```

Reported by `[e-mail]` on 2012-07-02 23:39:47

[Former user]

``` In upc-lib-io.tex, the text formatting of the library header file is inconsistent with that of the language specification.

CURRENT: \subsection{UPC Parallel I/O \texttt{<}upc\_io.h\texttt{>}}

CORRECT: \subsection{UPC Parallel I/O {\tt <upc\_io.h>}} ```

Reported by `nspark.work` on 2012-08-07 13:34:01

[Former user]

``` --- upc-lib-core.tex (revision 71) +++ upc-lib-core.tex (working copy) @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ upc\_lock\_t} may therefore only be manipulated through pointers. Such objects have two states called {\em locked} and {\em unlocked}.

-\np Two pointers to that reference the same lock object will +\np Two pointers to {\tt upc\_lock\_t} that reference the same lock object will compare as equal. The results of applying {\tt upc\_phaseof()}, {\tt upc\_threadof()}, and {\tt upc\_addrfield()} to such pointers are undefined.

Committing this change now.

```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-08-10 23:10:21

[Former user]

``` upc-language.tex:

\np When {\em affinity} is {\tt continue} or not specified, each loop body of the {\tt upc\_forall} statement is performed by every thread and semantic 1 does not apply.

This is a broken cross-reference in both 1.2 and 1.3, because "semantic 1" does not exist. It is trying to refer to the first semantic, which is currently paragraph 5. Not sure the "right" way to fix this. Do we have paragraph cross-references? ```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-08-10 23:11:51

[Former user]

``` Everything above except comments #1 and #7 have been addressed. Those two are technically changes relative to 1.2 and thus will be fixed after Draft 1 is stamped. ```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-08-12 19:13:40

[Former user]

``` Re: comment 7 (the need to reference a paragraph number).

The spec. preamble currently implements paragraph numbering via the \np and \npf macros.

\newcommand{\np}{% \addtocounter{parnum}{1}% \latex{\hspace{-2em}\makebox[2em][l]{\arabic{parnum}}}% \html}\tab}}

\newcommand{\npf}{\setcounter{parnum}{0}\np}

Perhaps if \paragraph{} were instead extended to add paragraph numbers (requiring something special for non-numbered paragraphs) we might be able increase secnumdepth to allow labels in paragraphs, and then subsequent references.

See: http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=subsubsub

Extending paragraph behavior in this way appears to be a rather complex task requiring a deeper understanding of LaTeX's implementation. It is possible that the "isov2" package (for example) has a solution that we can use as a model, but I haven't investigated this.

Perhaps there is a simpler method, but my brief attempt at Googling for answers didn't turn anything up.

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-12 23:23:14

[Former user]

``` "Perhaps there is a simpler method, but my brief attempt at Googling for answers didn't turn anything up."

Thanks for looking into this. I don't think we should change our setup of /paragraph for such an isolated need.

I think the "simplest method" is just going to be hard-code in the correct paragraph number, and leave a big comment in the tex file for anyone modifying that section. It's a nasty hack but gets the job done. ```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-08-13 01:09:40

[Former user]

``` I agree with Dan's suggestion in comment 10. For this isolated use, simply hand-code the paragraph number, with suitable warnings to future editors of the document.

```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-13 03:31:17

[Former user]

``` Set default Consensus to "Low". ```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-19 23:26:19 - Labels added: Consensus-Low

[Former user]

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-08-19 23:45:19 - Labels added: Consensus-High - Labels removed: Consensus-Low

[Former user]

``` The problems mentioned in comments #1 and #7 are now fixed in SVN r99, and this issue is therefore resolved.

Any new typos discovered should be submitted as NEW, separate issue tickets. ```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-13 18:57:56 - Status changed: `Fixed`

[Former user]

``` For the record: Public comment period for this change was 8/14/2012 - 9/14/2012 No substantial objections were raised or recorded during that period. At the 9/7/2012 telecon, it was announced this change was imminent, feedback was explicitly solicited, and none was received. The change was integrated into a working draft distributed on 9/13/2012 for consideration and draft ratification at the 9/14/2012 telecon. ```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-14 07:26:14

[Former user]

``` Changes distributed as Draft 1.1 were ratified during the 9/14/2012 teleconference, for inclusion in the next public draft. ```

Reported by `danbonachea` on 2012-09-14 21:46:01 - Status changed: `Ratified`

[Former user]

``` Fix spelling error in summary line ("Miscellaneous"). ```

Reported by `gary.funck` on 2012-09-21 16:44:03