(j3.2006) G editing to a narrow output field

[Malcolm Cohen]

>Most users understand the words in (b) to mean that you get stars printed if 
>the value cannot be represented by the given format because w is too small.

Except that that is not what it says.

>Perhaps is needs to be worded better.

If we want it to say that we need to actually make it say that.  There is no 
ambiguity in what it says right now, it is just that you don't like it.  Well, I 
don't like it much either (but I still implemented what it said).

>The underlying question is whether the field width meant there is the one 
>explicitly visible in the G6.5 (i.e.6), or the field width of the ultimate F 
>descriptor, 2.    Most implementations have interpreted the right answer to be 
>6 stars.

Irrelevant.  It is not what the standard says.

We've been over this kind of thing before, e.g. for MOD with P==0.  In F77-F95 
this was standard-conforming with a processor-dependent result.  There were in 
fact *NO COMPILERS* that permitted integer MOD to have P==0.  Despite that when 
we decided to forbid P=0 we put in words into clause 1 to say this was a change 
from the previous standard.

Which is why I wrote:
> I don't disagree with that.  Let's make another inconsistency with
> F77/90/95/2003!?

Bill further opined:
>I would see an interp answer of ***** as being consistent with all the past 
>standards, and a helpful clarification.

It is not consistent with any previous standard.  I have no problems with making 
it say the "right thing", as with the other glitches in G format they are 
obviously (?) mistakes in the standard.  But "the standard is obviously in 
error" is not quite the same as "the standard already says the right thing".

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