(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5659) [ukfortran] Straw ballot on second draft corrigendum4

[Bill Long]

The ?active image? term is new in the TS/Fortran 2015.  For edits to Fortran 2008, it would not be appropriate.  I assume Malcolm will make amy needed adjustments when incorporating text into the Fortran 2015 draft. 

Cheers,
Bill


On Jan 28, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Van Snyder <Van.Snyder at jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> 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,
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> J3 mailing list
> J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
> http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Support  &                                  voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                     fax:  651-605-9142
Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101