From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Oct 25 02:43:48 2013 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 B9B51358218; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:43:48 +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 B4BAA3581D9 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 02:43:22 +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 r9P0hHc7006518 for ; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:43:20 GMT (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <6510A94709CD4AE5AD611A4D912AF914@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: References: <20130924185358.0C92C357284@www.open-std.org> <20131024142725.BC0E535815B@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20131024142725.BC0E535815B@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5109) WG5 letter ballot 7 on Fortran 2008interpretations Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:43:19 +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 David Muxworthy writes: >Should new constraint C852a have a reference to R864? The short answer is "no". The long answer is long... People are frequently confused by rule references in constraints, variously assuming (a) it limits the application to the rule referenced [most common] (b) it applies the constraint everywhere that rule appears, (c) they just ignore it and read what they think the constraint is saying. Actually maybe (c) is most common. Anyway, in my opinion constraints should be written identically to other normative requirements, and not use some special notation to limit/broadcast/whatever the constraint. If the constraint is written unambiguously in that fashion, then people don't get so confused by the rule reference because it is totally superfluous. And then we can and should drop the rule reference entirely. C852a is indeed written just like any normative requirement and does not require any rule reference for its understanding or application. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.