(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4219) WG5 ballot on the draft FDIS
Dan Nagle
dannagle
Mon Apr 5 07:08:15 EDT 2010
Hello,
I vote "YES". TIA
On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:00 AM, John Reid wrote:
> WG5,
>
> The FDIS is ready for the WG5 ballot. I attach the ballot and
> associated Editor's report. The FDIS itself is visible on the WG5
> site or in the Edits folder of the J3 member's site.
>
> Van has kindly provided me with a page of links to draft standards
> and corrigenda, which is now linked from the top of the WG5 home page.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> John.
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5
> N1822
> To: WG5
> From: Malcolm Cohen
> Subject: Editor's report on N1814 production
> Date: 2010/03/15
>
>
> 1. Introduction
>
> While entering the edits to produce N1814, some papers had wording
> problems
> and so were entered differently. Also, some other minor editorial
> problems
> were noticed and so some additional edits were done. This paper
> describes
> those changes.
>
>
> 2. Papers entered with no change
>
> These papers were entered with no change.
>
> 09-294 10-107r2 10-117r1 10-131
> 10-101r1 10-109r2 10-118 10-132r1
> 10-102 10-111 10-120 10-136
> 10-103 10-112r1 10-123r1 10-137r1
> 10-104r1 10-115 10-127 10-141
>
>
> 3. Papers entered with minor changes
>
> 09-300r1
> Indented [102:36], [103:2], [175:32];
> reduced intra-sentence line spacing here from paragraph to line.
> 09-302r1
> Omitted the edit overridden by 10-132r1.
> 10-108r1
> Changed "errorstop-stmt"->"error-stop-stmt" throughout;
> in various places including [174:22,35], alphabetised the result.
> 10-110r1
> Changed "extents in"->"sizes of".
> 10-113r3
> Added conjunction to first sentence of each edit.
> Editor's comment:
> In my opinion, these ought to be called out in each affected
> intrinsic (that's where people will look!), but that is too big a
> change to be editorial. I did index these, so someone using the
> paper copy has a nonzero chance of finding them.
> 10-114r1
> Changed "The constraints"->"Constraints".
> 10-116
> Added full stop at the end of the sentence.
> 10-119r1
> Retained existing alphabetic ordering in lists.
> 10-121r2
> At [50:4], moved the reference 3 words later (before ";").
> 10-126r1
> [15:36+] Inserted "inclusive scope" definition as a top-level
> definition instead of a sub-definition,
> as it is not "scoping unit" + a qualifier;
> thus inserted at [11:9+].
> [307:28,30] Location was wrong (not to C1253, both lines are in
> p4);
> Changed "the scope of the function name"->"its scope"
> to avoid clumsy wording.
> [441:4-8] I made this a separate paragraph.
> [442:3] Didn't insert "following" or the ":", since the list format
> wasn't being edited to make that correct.
> [442:4-7] This paragraph wants rewriting, but that is not easy
> enough
> to do as a quick editorial fix (entered as per 10-126r1).
> [443:32] Changed "the scope"->"a scope".
> 10-128
> [170:2] made the sentence unreadable, so
> "a construct that contains the block"->"an outer construct"
> twice;
> made into a list, factoring out "when";
> broke the paragraph into two one-sentence paragraphs.
> 10-129
> Appended to paragraph 2 instead of paragraph 1: p1 says what the
> generic interface is and does, p2 at least has some
> requirements so
> it fits better there (still not very good though);
> also improved nearby indexing of terms.
> 10-130
> Also singularised sentence.
> 10-133
> Appended full stop to the paragraph.
> 10-134r1
> Changed "USE or host"->"use or host".
> 10-138
> [58:18] removed commas.
> 10-139
> Improved indexing.
> 10-140 Moved the inserted constraints [85:3+]->[85:10+],
> so the constraints are in order of the BNF rule numbers.
>
>
> 5. Paper entered with more substantial changes
>
> This paper was entered with more substantial changes.
>
> 10-125r2
> [cover] Made it look more like an ISO DIS.
> [throughout] Footer contents different, when I looked at N1798
> again
> more carefully I discovered that I had misread it.
> [5:3-8] Sorted into alphabetic order by qualifier.
> [5:45] Changed "that"->"the".
> {Reads better without two "that"s.}
> [6:33] Sorted into order by qualifier.
> [6:37] Promoted to a top-level term and moved to alphabetic
> position,
> as it was confusing where it was.
> [7:21] Deleted "being", which serves no purpose other than to
> make the
> text not suitable for replacement of the term.
> [7:28-30] Changed "property of having"->"has",
> moved the reference to the end.
> [8:3-5] Sorted into order by qualifier.
> [8:23-26] Deleted "the", changed "having"->"has".
> [10:17-19] Changed "having"->"has".
> [11:12] Deleted "to" before "acquire".
> [11:20] Deleted "its".
> [12:3] Deleted "being".
> [15:33-36] Changed "block"->"BLOCK" (that's what we call it).
> [16:16] Deleted "the".
> [19:20-23] Changed "and"->"or".
> [19:45-20:1] Changed "the property of not having"->"does not have",
> twice.
>
>
> 5. Extra edits.
>
> The following extra edits were made based on particular papers.
> Reasons are given in {}.
>
> From 10-115:
> Made an identical text change at [462:45].
> {Because the same text appears there.}
>
> From 10-125r2
> [4:8] "an constant"->"a constant".
> {Grammar.}
>
> [7:25] deleted "being".
> {Improper form for definition.}
>
> [17:10,13,16] "storage unit"->"unit of storage" thrice,
> "for holding"->"that holds" thrice.
> {Avoid recursive definition, improve grammer.}
>
> From 10-126r1
> [311:16,17] "scoping unit"->"inclusive scope", twice.
> {Missing edit = TECHNICAL ERROR.}
>
> [442:17] "scoping unit" -> "inclusive scope".
> {Missing edit = TECHNICAL ERROR.}
>
>
> 6. Additional extra edits.
>
> The following edits were made from various sources including email,
> editor's review and review of changes by the editorial subcommittee.
>
> [4:11] "of a \si{data-ref}, the"->"\termqual{\si{data-ref}}".
> {Should have been properly qualified as per other ISO CS comments.}
>
> [19:9] "of an \termii{extended}{type}, the"
> ->"\termqual{\termii{extended}{type}}".
> {Should have been properly qualified.}
>
> [35:1+] Insert new subtitle "2.4.3.1 General"
> {We have forbidden text prior to an initial subdivision.}
>
> [153:18] Before "default character kind", "of"->"or".
> {Typo.}
>
> [186:30] After "(R852" insert ")".
> {Typo.}
>
> [341:23] "scalar and of type integer"->"an integer scalar".
> {We tried to regularise these ages ago, but missed a few.}
>
> [341:24] "omitted"->"absent"
> {From context it is clear that this is what is meant, there is no
> other
> possible interpretation.}
>
> [346:2] "omitted"->"absent".
> {Ditto.}
>
> [362:8] same change as [341:23].
> {And the same reason.}
>
> [384:39] "have"->"has".
> {Correct number.}
>
> [391:4] same change as [341:23].
> {With the same reason.}
>
> [397:3] same change as [341:23].
> {With the same reason.}
>
> [420:38] "IEEE_SET_HALTING"->"IEEE_SET_HALTING_MODE".
> {Mistake in procedure name.}
>
> ===END===
>
> ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1821
>
> WG5 letter ballot on N1814
>
> John Reid, 15 March 2010
>
> This is the letter ballot that WG5 agreed to hold on the draft FDIS
> for
> Fortran 2008. This has been constructed by the editor in accord with
> resolution
> LV6 of the recent WG5 meeting (see N1811) with the few very minor
> additional
> changes that are detailed in N1822.
>
> Please answer the following question "Is N1814 ready for forwarding
> to SC22
> as the FDIS for Fortran 2008?" in one of these ways.
>
> 1) Yes.
> 2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
> 3) No, for the following reasons.
> 4) Abstain.
>
> This is an individual vote. Please send your vote to sc22wg5 at open-std.org
> to arrive by 9 a.m. (UK time) on April 12th 2010.
>
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at j3-fortran.org
> http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
--
Cheers!
Dan Nagle
More information about the J3
mailing list