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".

The author has read the paper by Wilkins and Schilder and he thinks that the Editorial Board should not take it for publication. The paper does not appropriate to the reseach area of the Annual Review.

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.

The author tells how much time ("a devil of a time") he spent for trimming down his report. If this is still too bulky for publication, he is ready to receive "an impartial judgement".

The author thanks for publishing his paper in the Annual Review and sends the revised full manuscript.

The author sends the draft of his article for the Annual Review. He goes over it again in September after the IFIP and ACM meetings.

C.Shaw sends two papers to all the editors and asks them to send comments on Fujino's paper to Tony Brooker as responsible editor, and comments on Olle's paper to Mark Halpern.

The author is taking steps to expedite the decision about the addressee's paper and he hopes it will be done in a couple of weeks.

The author wants to know about a decision on his paper.

The author says that the addressee's paper has been sent to the publisher (Pergamon Press) and soon the addressee should be receiving page proofs.

The author trusts that the final draft of his paper has been received by addressee.

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.