(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3561) [ukfortran] Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations

[Malcolm Cohen]

I wrote:
>    "On output, with ... F editing, the specified value of the field
>     width <w> may be zero.  In such case, the processor selects
>     the smallest positive actual field width that does not result in
>         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     a field filled with asterisks."
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:20:23 +0900, Jim Xia <jimxia at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> Then what about another quote from standard for 10.6.1.2.1. F editing:
> "When w is zero, the processor selects the field width." [228:10].  I
> think this sentence overrides what Malcolm just quoted since this sentence
> particularly describe the F editing, while the other is general
> description for I, B, O, Z and F editing.

Sorry Jim, but I cannot agree that
   "the processor selects the field width"
contradicts in ANY way
   "the processor selects the ... field width ...".

The sentence you found does not list all the requirements on the processor.
That in no way implies there are none.  The word "selects" does not mean
"can pick any value it chooses without limitation" unless the entire rest
of the standard is silent on the matter!  In particular, it does NOT say
"processor-dependent".  The "processor selects the field width" is drawing
a distinction between this case and the w>0 case which might accurately be
characterised as the "user selects the field width".

Furthermore, re "this sentence overrides": No.  Not now.  Not ever.

If there is a contradiction in the standard (and I don't mean a
contrived one made up by taking sentences out of context) then there
is a contradiction and the standard is broken.

That is not the case here.

What we have here is a less specific sentence that gives fewer details
than another sentence.  Those details are given in other sentences, both
within 10.6.1.2.1 and elsewhere.

Since
   (a) the text I quoted is completely unambiguous on this question,
   (b) that text is NOT contradicted by other text,
   (c) the w==0 feature was introduced as "minimal field width editing"
       (see various papers in WG5 and J3 in the lead-up to F95)
I don't see how there can be any question that the actual field width
when w==0 can be anything other than minimal.

Cheers,
-- 
................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm at nag-j.co.jp)