(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5945) AW: AW: draft comments for CD

Bader, Reinhold Reinhold.Bader
Tue Aug 22 12:21:40 EDT 2017


Hello John, 

> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: John Reid [mailto:John.Reid at stfc.ac.uk]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 17:29
> An: Bader, Reinhold <Reinhold.Bader at lrz.de>; WG5 <sc22wg5 at open-
> std.org>
> Betreff: Re: AW: (SC22WG5.5942) (j3.2006) draft comments for CD
> 
> Reinhold,
> 
> Bader, Reinhold wrote:
> > Hello John,
> >
> > thanks for the feedback. Further comments inline.
> 
> Thanks for telling me how you have treated my comments.
> 
> 187:26. I don't think this edit is needed. An associated coarray is established
> by the association, see 5.4.8, para 3.
> 
> Re 562:32, I agree that a change at 187:26 is desirable, but it should be a
> separate comment in order with the others. The TS (at 10: 23-24) says "The
> coarray shall be established when the CHANGE TEAM statement begins
> execution." but this seems not to have made it to the draft standard. How
> about using these words?

I have separated this off into a comment of its own, using the following words for the 
suggested edit: 

?The selector shall be a coarray that is established when the CHANGE TEAM statement begins execution.?

(slightly changed wording to adapt for context).

> 
> I think an edit might be needed to the example on 562.

I've added a suggestion for some explanatory text at 562:41+ and hope that is sufficient.

Finally, I've reconsidered 105:29-30. The comment was deleted; [104:4] explicitly describes the alternatives (as stated by you), 
and therefore there is no ambiguity.

Thanks for all the feedback. 

Cheers
Reinhold

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> >
> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: owner-sc22wg5 at open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5 at open-
> std.org]
> >> Im Auftrag von John Reid
> >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 00:15
> >> An: WG5 <sc22wg5 at open-std.org>
> >> Betreff: (SC22WG5.5942) (j3.2006) draft comments for CD
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bader, Reinhold wrote:
> >>> Dear WG5/J3,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> attached please find my draft contribution for the comments from
> >> Germany.
> >>
> >> Here are my (personal) comments on your comments.
> >>
> >> 40:17. I think the present text is OK. An image can have an execution
> >> state of failed.
> >
> > OK - I've deleted this comment.
> >>
> >> 45:22. An image can be a member of more than one established team, so
> >> the new words would be better as ?of a team in which it is established
> (5.4.8)?.
> > I've made this change.
> >
> >>
> >> 105:29-30. I think the present text is OK. An assumed-rank entity is just
> that.
> >> It is not an array.
> >
> > Unfortunately, the object has the DIMENSION attribute, and an
> > assumed-rank-spec is a variant of array-spec. I've modified the suggested
> change to read:
> >
> > [105:29-30] Delete C831
> > [104:14+] Insert reworded constraint C829+ ?A named object with the
> > DIMENSION attribute that has the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute shall
> have an array-spec that is a deferred-shape-spec-list or an assumed-rank-
> spec.?
> >
> >>
> >> 124. For the edit, don't you need "of a derived type defined in the
> module"?
> > Yes,done.
> >>
> >> 188. I think the definitive text needs to be clearer on this point.
> >
> > Maybe, but Bill hasn't commented on the relevant thread yet, so this might
> become homework for J3.
> >
> >>
> >> 500:22-23. In the edit, change "subscripts[n-1]" to "subscript[n-1]".
> >
> > The parameter has the name "subscripts", so I think my edit is OK.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Reinhold
> >
> >>
> >> 562:32. Comment to come.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John.



More information about the J3 mailing list