(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5658) [ukfortran] Straw ballot on second draft corrigendum4

[Van Snyder]

We're now using (or going to use) the term "active image" instead of
"non-stopped image".  Should the two occurrences (6.7.1.2 and 6.7.3.2)
of "non-stopped image" be "active image"?

On Thu, 2016-01-28 at 17:49 +0900, Cohen Malcolm wrote:
> This is an interim vote.  I might have other changes to suggest later (I am 
> only 1/4 of the way through...).
> 
> >Please answer the following question "Is N2095, with the references and
> >notes removed, acceptable for submission to SC22 for publication as
> >Corrigendum 4 for Fortran 2008?" in one of these ways.
> >
> >1) Yes.
> >2) Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
> 
> Yes, but I recommend the following changes.
> 
> >3) No, for the following reasons.
> >4) Abstain.
> 
> CHANGES:
> (1) In the edit for F08/0131 (page xvi), after "A contiguous array" insert 
> the word "variable".  This is because the sentence later says "provided the 
> variable ..." and this is meant to apply both to the contiguous array or the 
> scalar character variable.
> (2) Same edit, slightly later in the sentence, change "kind and kind type 
> parameter" to "type and kind type parameter (if any)".  This is obviously 
> what the interp was talking about - the edit should not be insisting that 
> the kind be interoperable twice.  The "(if any)" is because I think this can 
> apply when the array is of a BIND(C) type, which has no type parameter.
> (3) In the edit for F08/0127, change "is permitted to" to "can", i.e. the 
> replacement text should read "A free form continuation line can begin with 
> ...".  Reason: the Introduction is non-normative so we are not allowed to 
> have requirements here.
> (4) In the edit for F08/0124, the location should be "Subclause 1.3", and 
> the instruction should be "After the definition of <B>parent component</B> 
> (1.3.33.2), insert a new term:", as although definitions use the same 
> numbering scheme as subclauses,  they are not actually subclauses: see ISO 
> directives part 2 which says
>   "terms and definitions are a definitions list and not a series of 
> subclauses".
> (5) Subclause 4.3.1.3
> Change "the <I>derived-type-def</I> of the specified derived type" to "its 
> <I>derived-type-def</I>".
> Reason: immediately prior to this we've established that we are talking 
> about "that derived type" (which is "the derived type [] specified in the 
> FUNCTION statement"); switching from "that derived type" to "the specified 
> derived type" implies there is some other specified derived type (which is 
> not the case) as well as being unnecessarily long-winded platitudinous 
> ponderosity.  "its" is more than adequate!
> (6) It does not really matter for a corrigendum, but the edit for 5.3.4 
> inserts a disjunction into a paragraph that already has a conjunction, 
> without adding a comma for disambiguation.  One can deduce the parse from 
> the fact that it has bullet points, but it would be slightly nicer if there 
> were also a comma before the "and" at the end of the first bullet point.  (I 
> will have to remember this when applying the changes to 007!)
> 
> Cheers,