Authors send the report "Formal Definition of PL/1" to submit a summary of it for publication in the Annual Review.

Author approves of the topic of the paper and asks to send the finished paper by July 1. To speed the editorial machinery, addressees can send the paper copies to each of the members of the Editorial Board.

Reply to the letter of 24 April. Authors ask to extend deadline untill August 1. A size of the paper is about 50 pages.

The authors regret that they are forced to withdraw the proposed contribution on the Formal Definition of PL/1 for publication in the Review.

Author is inclosing a copy of comments on Colouris's paper. He regrets that the publication of Lucas and Walk's paper on definition of PL/1 is deferred.

Halpern and Shaw have to report to Editorial Board members a decision, that they have been forced by circumstances to take without their consent: to publish new paper of Dr. A.L.Samuel instead of Lucas's paper.

Reply to the letter of July, 11. Authors submit the paper for the following volume. To the end of this year they hope to improve the second version of their formal definition of PL/1.

The author hopes that by now Coulouris has sent a revised version of his paper to the addressee. The author will leave it to the addressee to decide whether to publish it or not.

C.Shaw sends to all the members the last materials for the forthcoming volume 5 of the Review and begins to prepare the next volume. He suggests to enlarge the Editorial Board by one or two European members.

The authors send two copies of promised paper on the formal description of PL/1. They sent one copy to each member of the Editorial Board.

As responsible editor, the author has decided against publication of Erikson's paper in the Annual Review. Moreover, he earnestly recommends to publish the article of Lucas and Walk.

C.Shaw sends four papers by W.H.Burge to all the editors and asks their opinions about considering any of the four papers for publication in ARAP. He informs on completion of the editorial work for Volume 6. He raises perplexing questions about publisher and Volume 7.

The fifth volume of Annuel Review has been published. The volume is a handsome one and seems to be very well printed. The authors have sent to Pergamon much of the contents of the next volume. They are still dissatisfied by the paucity of contributions from outside the English-speaking community.

Before volume 6 to be issued shortly the authors review accomplishments and plans for the future. In particular, they are disappointed by the very small number of contributions from outside the United States. In this connection the following editors are noted: Floyd, Brooker, Bolliet, Ershov and Inada.

The author has received an advance copy of volume 6 and discusses the contributions for Volume 7. Status of these contributions is represented in the Attachment.