From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Jul 16 02:21:09 2010 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 13D13C3BA0F; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:21:09 +0200 (CEST) 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 www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5286EC3BA04 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 02:21:04 +0200 (CEST) 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 1OZYev-0000Pl-P0 for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:20:09 +0900 Message-ID: <95F3B0B6951C46579A287F8A65A0FA88@Marucomputer> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5 Mailing List" References: <20100714154320.CE3BBC178DF@www2.open-std.org><4C3DE016.80305@cray.com><20100714160852.14E1BC178DF@www2.open-std.org> <20100714183305.99CE3C178E4@www2.open-std.org><20100715052541.3EAA7C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20100716000421.69C99C3BA04@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20100716000421.69C99C3BA04@www2.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4300) RE: Fw: A Question About IS_CONTIGUOUS Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:22:16 +0900 Organization: ??NAG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk I wrote: > As for Jim's question > > Should this be an interp? > > The answer is no, you should just read the conditions required for contiguity > which, as the definition of the term "contiguous" says, are "specified in > 5.3.7". Craig Dedo pontificated: >I disagree. I believe that this issue is significant enough and complicated >enough that it justifies formal interpretation processing, even if the >answer(s) is (are) well known in advance. The answer is written in the standard. The formal interp process is not there to help people who didn't read the text. This is not a case of error, ambiguity, or unclear text - the answer is clearly written. It is certainly not complicated! > As far as I know, the traditional rules still apply. The rules are that the formal process is for handling defects. Not a simple mistake on reading the document. (I mean no disrespect to those who do misread - we all do it from time to time, and pointing out the text we somehow managed to skip over is all that is required, not full-on meeting discussions and three levels of formal voting!) Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.