From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Mar 26 15:20:57 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom6 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom6@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id D7680D84A5; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:20:57 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEFC03850A for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:20:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m2QEKRHr002234 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:20:27 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m2QEKRSZ243266 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:20:27 -0400 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m2QEKQ40015544 for ; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:20:27 -0400 Received: from d25ml04.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml04.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.105]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m2QEKQde015526; Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:20:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080326140649.3B700D6E31@open-std.org> To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk, fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org, WG5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3558) [ukfortran] Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF144 February 01, 2006 Message-ID: From: Jim Xia Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:20:23 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML04/25/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2HF446 | March 16, 2007) at 03/26/2008 10:20:25, Serialize complete at 03/26/2008 10:20:25 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 004EC65785257418_=" Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 004EC65785257418_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Then what about another quote from standard for 10.6.1.2.1. F editing: "When w is zero, the processor selects the field width." [228:10]. I think this sentence overrides what Malcolm just quoted since this sentence particularly describe the F editing, while the other is general description for I, B, O, Z and F editing. Cheers Jim Xia RL Fortran Compiler Test IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7 Phone (905) 413-3444 Tie-line 313-3444 email: jimxia@ca.ibm.com D2/YF7/8200 /MKM John Reid Sent by: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org 03/26/2008 10:06 AM Please respond to j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk; Please respond to fortran standards email list for J3 To WG5 cc Subject (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3558) [ukfortran] Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations ------- Forwarded message ------- On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:29:53 +0900, Jim Xia wrote: > NO vote on F03/0100 > The second edit says that if is zero, then the output field for NaN > values is 'NaN'. This seems to be too restrictive. Processors should be > given options for additional information in the output, e.g. a processor > can > provide additional information to specify whether a NaN is quiet NaN or > signaling NaN. Malcolm says: This argument is without merit. w==0 is "minimal field width", and explicitly prohibits inclusion of optional information (such as optional plus signs and leading zeroes). If w==3 produces "NaN" and not "***", then w==0 producing anything longer than 3 is, by definition, NOT minimal. I quote from the standard "On output, with ... F editing, the specified value of the field width may be zero. In such case, the processor selects the smallest positive actual field width that does not result in ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ a field filled with asterisks." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Jim's suggestion is contradicted both by the letter and the spirit of the minimal width editing feature in the standard. Cheers, -- ................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@j3-fortran.org http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 --=_alternative 004EC65785257418_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Then what about another quote from standard for 10.6.1.2.1. F editing: "When w is zero, the processor selects the field width." [228:10].  I think this sentence overrides what Malcolm just quoted since this sentence particularly describe the F editing, while the other is general description for I, B, O, Z and F editing.

Cheers

Jim Xia

RL Fortran Compiler Test
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave, Markham, On, L6G 1C7
Phone (905) 413-3444  Tie-line 313-3444
email: jimxia@ca.ibm.com
D2/YF7/8200 /MKM


John Reid <j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk>
Sent by: j3-bounces@j3-fortran.org

03/26/2008 10:06 AM
Please respond to
j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk; Please respond to
fortran standards email list for J3 <j3@j3-fortran.org>
To
WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
cc
Subject
(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3558) [ukfortran] Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations






------- Forwarded message -------

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:29:53 +0900, Jim Xia <jimxia@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> NO vote on F03/0100
> The second edit says that if <w> is zero, then the output field for NaN
> values is 'NaN'.  This seems to be too restrictive.  Processors should be
> given options for additional information in the output, e.g. a processor
> can
> provide additional information to specify whether a NaN is quiet NaN or
> signaling NaN.

Malcolm says: This argument is without merit.

w==0 is "minimal field width", and explicitly prohibits inclusion of
optional information (such as optional plus signs and leading zeroes).

If w==3 produces "NaN" and not "***", then w==0 producing anything
longer than 3 is, by definition, NOT minimal.

I quote from the standard

  "On output, with ... F editing, the specified value of the field
   width <w> may be zero.  In such case, the processor selects
   the smallest positive actual field width that does not result in
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   a field filled with asterisks."
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jim's suggestion is contradicted both by the letter and the
spirit of the minimal width editing feature in the standard.

Cheers,
--
................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)

_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3@j3-fortran.org
http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3
--=_alternative 004EC65785257418_=--