C.Shaw sends a copy of a paper by Kiichi Fujino to all the members of the Editorial Board. He asks them to send comments on a paper's publishability to the responsible editor Professor Brooker.

The author thanks for the addressee's contribution. After editors' reviewing and a decision as to the paper's publishability, he promises that the full paper's translation from the Japanese will be paid for by the publisher.

The author sends the abstract of K.Fujino's paper. When the paper is accepted he must find out the professional translator. He wants to know the details of receiving pay for the translation.

The author will send copies of the addressee's thesis to the other members of the Editorial Board. If they decide to publish it, the addressee must to prepair a final draft about a month later.

The author thanks for the letter of February 14. He intends to update his paper and wants to know the deadlines.

The author thanks for the revised version of the paper on "Survey of Macro Processors."

The author is enclosing a revised version of his paper "A Survey of Macro Processors" to be considered for Annual Review. He did not agree with all Halpern's comments, but he is very grateful to Mr. Halpern.

The author sends copies of three just-received contributions to ARAP Volume 6, informs on editorial responsibility for deciding on the publishability for each of the papers.

The Editorial Board has decided that the addressee's paper would not be appropriate for publication in the Annual Review. It is "far beyond the interests of our readers".

Chris. Shaw is enclosing a copy of Brooker's comments on the Fujino paper (in Attachment), and asks Professor Ershov to be the responsible editor for Erickson's contribution.

The author informs that the Hassler's paper on compilers is "quite valuable as PhD. Dissertation but I don't think it should be considered for publication in ARAP"

The author thanks for accepting his contribution for Volume 6 and sends his final revised paper.

The author, referring to an expert opinion, informs about a nonacceptance of the addressee's paper. The reviewer suggests the first part of the paper to submit for publication in a technical monthly journal.

The author didn't receive a paper by Erickson and waits for it.

The author sends to all the editors a copy of the first set of page proofs for Volume 5, the other sets will be along shortly. Remarks are listed.

The author apologizes for the delay in sending the copy of Dr.Erickson's paper. The paper must be approved by SDC security office. With the precedent established, things should go much faster in the future.