(j3.2006) Typographical / editorial comments on 08-297r1

Bill Long longb
Fri Dec 5 11:14:30 EST 2008



Van Snyder wrote:
> I noticed a few tiny editorial things about 08-297r1 about which I would
> like to quibble.
>
> In 13.7.11b, VALUE description, insert "the" between "have" and "same".
>   

Right.

> In 13.7.11b, Example, exchange the arguments.  This is actually a
> technical error, not an editorial preference.
>   

Quite right.

> In 13.8.2.1a,b, delete "specified by atomic subroutines".
>   

This wording was intentional. The term "atomic subroutine" is what we 
define in the standard.   "Atomic operations" is not mentioned 
elsewhere, so this sentence is the only effective definition.  It would 
be possible to add a sentence to the paragraph in 13.1 where atomic 
subroutines are described to say that the actions are "atomic 
operations".  However, I think the current text is less likely to be 
misinterpreted.  With your proposed change, the sentence would read "... 
for which the processor supports atomic operations.".  It reads as  if 
it is up to the processor to decide which atomic operations are 
supported, rather than the language spec.

Cheers,
Bill


>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
>   

-- 
Bill Long                                   longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &              voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development         fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120

            




More information about the J3 mailing list