From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Aug 6 04:52:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 71E0AC178E3; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:52:07 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1601 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at www2.open-std.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:52:06 CET DST Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 840FFC178E1 for ; Thu, 6 Aug 2009 04:52:06 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=marucomputer) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MYsfD-0003mP-2F for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Thu, 06 Aug 2009 11:25:08 +0900 Message-ID: <4DE8A72E4EE143BF8EEC902B7AF4A017@marucomputer> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20090805103016.83EAFC178E1@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20090805103016.83EAFC178E1@www2.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4068) Comments on the draft standard Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 11:25:19 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8064.206 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8064.206 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Hi folks, I have an editorial paper in the works that, among fixing other glitches, attempts to fix the problems noted by Richard Cook as per N1790. This will be a J3 paper (not a WG5 one), and I hope to have it ready before the meeting. The change he suggests to 1.1 includes moving the following text from "1.1 Scope" to the Introduction: "The second part, ISO/IEC 1539-2, defines additional facilities for the manipulation of character strings of variable length; this has been largely subsumed by allocatable characters with deferred length parameters. The third part, ISO/IEC 1539-3, defines a standard conditional compilation facility for Fortran. A processor conforming to part 1 need not conform to ISO/IEC 1539-2 or ISO/IEC 1539-3; however, conformance to either assumes conformance to this part." While this witter has historical relevance, it is entirely unnecessary, as - the other parts stand on their own, and whatever THEY say about what conformance to themselves means has effect, not this; - not saying anything in part 1 means conformance to part 1 means conformance to part 1, not parts 1,2,3; - the bit about part 2 itself plays down the importance of part 2, so why bother mentioning it? Anyway, I'd be perfectly happy to delete this witter, but if someone else thinks it is valuable, I will propose moving it to the Introduction instead, maybe with some rewording to make it fit. Comments anyone? Cheers, -- ......................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.