From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Mar 27 02:33:07 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 DDFBBD7D97; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:33:07 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BB593850A for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:32:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=marucomputer) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JegrY-0001yC-9G for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:25:05 +0900 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:32:57 +0900 To: WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3559) (j3.2006) Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations From: "Malcolm Cohen" Organization: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCRnxLXCVMJWElaiUrJWslIiVrJTQlaiU6JWAlOiUwGyhC?= =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCJWshPCVXM3Q8MDJxPFIbKEI=?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20080326142058.05BA4D6E31@open-std.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20080326142058.05BA4D6E31@open-std.org> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.26 (Win32) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I wrote: > "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." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:20:23 +0900, Jim Xia wrote: > 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. Sorry Jim, but I cannot agree that "the processor selects the field width" contradicts in ANY way "the processor selects the ... field width ...". The sentence you found does not list all the requirements on the processor. That in no way implies there are none. The word "selects" does not mean "can pick any value it chooses without limitation" unless the entire rest of the standard is silent on the matter! In particular, it does NOT say "processor-dependent". The "processor selects the field width" is drawing a distinction between this case and the w>0 case which might accurately be characterised as the "user selects the field width". Furthermore, re "this sentence overrides": No. Not now. Not ever. If there is a contradiction in the standard (and I don't mean a contrived one made up by taking sentences out of context) then there is a contradiction and the standard is broken. That is not the case here. What we have here is a less specific sentence that gives fewer details than another sentence. Those details are given in other sentences, both within 10.6.1.2.1 and elsewhere. Since (a) the text I quoted is completely unambiguous on this question, (b) that text is NOT contradicted by other text, (c) the w==0 feature was introduced as "minimal field width editing" (see various papers in WG5 and J3 in the lead-up to F95) I don't see how there can be any question that the actual field width when w==0 can be anything other than minimal. Cheers, -- ................Malcolm Cohen (malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)