(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4501) [ukfortran] Vote of draft PDTR

[Malcolm Cohen]

>Please answer the following question "Is N1866 ready for forwarding to SC22
>as the PDTR?" in one of these ways.

3) No, for the following reasons.

REASON 1. Line numbers should be turned off.

REASON 2. Paragraph numbers really don't work throughout clause 6.
Either paragraph numbering could be turned off entirely for the whole document, 
or the following changes made:

Editorial: spurious paragraph numbers need to be deleted:
6.2 paragraph numbers 2, 4.
6.3 paragraph numbers 2, 3, 5, 7, 8.
6.4 paragraph numbers 3, 5.
6.6 paragraph number 3.
6.5 paragraph numbers 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16.
6.7 paragraph numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12.
6.8 paragraph numbers 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18-24, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 
39, 41.
6.9 paragraph numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17.
6.11 either delete paragraph 1 (not just the number) or delete paragraph numbers 
2-4.

REASON 3. Defective edit instructions need to be changed:
[31:29] after "15.5.8" insert ", with the existing 15.5 to be renumbered 15.6 
and its subclauses to be renumbered accordingly".
Then, insert "Insert subclause 2.4.2 of this Technical Report at the very end of 
clause 15 where it will become 15.6.4.".
[31:30] Delete

REASON 4. Missing edit for assumed-rank.
[28:8+] Insert new edit delimited by horizontal line
"{Replace paragraph 2 of 12.4.3.4.5 with}"
and then the contents from [12:12-15] of the TR, not including NOTE 2.3.

REASON 5. PDF Author info should be "JTC 1/SC 22/WG 5" not "INCITS/PL22.3".

REASON 6. Page size should be A4.

REASON 7. The Introduction is not supposed have a subtitle: after 
"Introduction", delete subtitle "Techical ... C".

REASON 8. [1:1-2] Replace the title with "Information technology - Programming 
languages - Fortran - Further Interoperability of Fortran with C".  I think that 
there should not be a trailing "-" (yes, the standard itself got that wrong!). 
Also please ensure more significant space between the tital and "1 Overview", 
e.g. with \vspace{1cm} (blank line before and after that).  You might need to 
push 1.4 off onto the next page to avoid a widow.

REASON 9. [1:20,23] Delete angle brackets around "dummy variable" twice, to get 
the definition into the form required by ISO (it is supposed to be a drop-in 
replacement, which for a noun is a noun phrase not an adjectival one).

REASON 10. The definition of assumed-type object is defective, as it makes 
CLASS(*) assumed-type.  The only obvious safe fix is to replace it with "dummy 
variable declared with the TYPE(*) type specifier", unsatisfactory though that 
seems.

REASON 11. The definition of C descriptor is a bit too terse, I recommend "C 
structure of type CFI_cdesc_t".
In fact it would probably be good to change most or maybe all of the "struct" 
usage in text to "C structure" (unless the letter C is absolutely positively 
definitely redundant and it cannot be misinterpreted even by a perverse 
reading).

REASON 12. NOTE 2.1 says
  "is passed as a simple pointer to the first address of the object"
this is confusing and possibly wrong (C allows fat pointers UIUI).  Anyway, a 
pointer *is* an address, it doesn't "point to" an address (unless it is a 
pointer to a pointer).  And what is the "first address" of an object?  Replace 
with
  "is intended to be passed as the C address of the object".
Following that, change "there is insufficient" to "there would be insufficient".

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