(j3.2006) Public Comment J32001

[Michael Ingrassia]

                                                           08-209
To: J3
From: Michael Ingrassia
Subject: Public Comment J32001
Date: 2008 June 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------

>From jvdelisle at verizon.net
Date: 2008 June 16
Subject: Comments on F2008 - 08-007r2:2008/03/11
To: f2008-ballot-comments-ext at sun.com

I have the following comments:

9.5.6.12 NEWUNIT= specifier in the OPEN statement:

Paragraph 2 needs some clarification.
Is it really intended that the NEWUNIT unit number be negative?
I presume this is intended to avoid conflicts with legacy codes.

Also, the wording of the paragraph reads as if this is a set of
constraints or restrictions.  I suggest the sentence be broken into
at least two sentences to clarify.  The first sentence should make
the assertion that the unit be a negative number (if that is indeed
the case).  The second sentence should then state what the unit number
shall not be.

For example:

2 A NEWUNIT value is a negative number.  A NEWUNIT value shall not be;
equal to -1, any of the named constants ERROR_UNIT, INPUT_UNIT,
or OUTPUT_UNIT from the intrinsic module ISO FORTRAN ENV (13.8.2),
any value used by the processor for the unit argument to a defined
input/output procedure, nor any previous NEWUNIT
value that identifies a file that is currently connected.


10.7.2.3.3 E and D editing:

Please explicitly state that the d precision specifier in Ew.d can not
be zero.
Currently we are deducing this from the relation given in sub-part 8:

-d < k <= 0

For any value of k, d can not be zero and have this relation satisfied.
This is a rather obscure way to come to the conclusion that d can not
be zero.  The standard could be improved by being more specific and
just stating "d shall not be zero"


Thank you for considering my comments.

Best regards,

Jerry DeLisle


----------------------------------------------------------------------