(j3.2006) Interpretation F08/0055

[Malcolm Cohen]

I wrote:
> That question is specifically about 1PGw.0, so naturally this is the case. 
> Are you objecting to the question?  Of course there are lots more questions 
> that could be asked...

Robert Corbett replied:
>I assumed the questioner intended the question to be
>applied more broadly than to the specific example he
>gave.

Still limited to 1PGw.0 though.

> I thought his intent was to ask if the edited
>values produced by a G edit descriptor should retain
>the order relation of the original values (up to the
>edited values becoming equal).

I think I wrote that question up actually!  We did not consider the general 
question, as it was already getting very complicated enough.

>The Fortran standard used to use Fortran
>notation for expressions meant to be interpreted as
>mathematical expressions, in the definition of NINT
>for example.

We certainly weaselled on that one when asked, but actually that was not and is 
not the case.

>  I checked and found that those
>definitions have been altered so that they no
>longer use Fortran notation.

Naturally.  Fortran notation means Fortran.

>The symbol N in question is the symbol N from
>clause 10.7.5.2.2, which is neither a Fortran
>integer nor a Fortran floating-point value.

Sorry I implicitly typed it...

>The mathematical formula was
>the most compact definition I found that precisely
>specified the value.

I don't care, we are not going to use symbols that are unfamiliar to our 
audience.  We would need to explain them, and then they are no longer shorter 
than the words anyway.

Brevity is not always the soul of simplicity.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.