From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Sep 19 07:27:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 689BA35691D; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:27:39 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12FB73568FA for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:27:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105]) (authenticated bits=0) by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8J5RV4U087576 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 05:27:33 GMT (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <1798CCA645ED49D5BF0273C853A5AC85@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: References: <501BB236.4000004@stfc.ac.uk><20120902160848.E514F35693A@www.open-std.org> <20120915155253.185C2356938@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20120915155253.185C2356938@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4778) Fourth WG5 ballot on interpretations Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:27:29 +0900 Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= 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 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Malcolm's responses to David Muxworthy's comments: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0043 Why not remove C1229 now? It takes only three small edits. Response: Because there is no defect in the standard so it would be an unnecessary edit. Editorial fixes like removing redundant text is more efficiently done via the editorial process for the next revision. (It might not necessarily be best to remove the specific redundancy identified by the interp question.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0054 In the first edit shift 'only' four words to the right? Response: ok (the original is also ok, but this is marginally nicer). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0055 Is it preferred style to use 'd==0' in narrative English in the edits (twice), rather than d=0? d is not a variable (although it could be represented by a character variable). Response: I take your point, but actually I don't like "[with] d=0" much either; "[with] d equal to zero" would be better I think, and matches the wording in the later clause better. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for comment on F08/0057 It would be more in accordance with previous practice to number the new constraint C1504a. [Corrigendum 1 uses both upper and lower case suffices for new constraints. Presumably lower case is preferred.] Response: I agree. I think we should use lower case for the suffices. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.