From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Dec 5 02:08:14 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 845873572E7; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 02:08:14 +0100 (CET) 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 2F1E9356D07 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 02:08:11 +0100 (CET) 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 rB5185SG058383 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 01:08:08 GMT (envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp) Message-ID: <4A49E6A2F31A437B811DF6DB6FCEB7D1@Maru6> From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20131126013542.D88A93582CC@www.open-std.org><20131126110419.1106A35832A@www.open-std.org><20131129083253.C1BB43580DA@www.open-std.org><529CFBA4.2020504@cray.com><20131204062716.036013582EC@www.open-std.org> <1386189985.16299.1180.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <1386189985.16299.1180.camel@math.jpl.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5125) [ukfortran] [ Draft corrigendum 3] Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:08:06 +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: 8bit 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 J3 people, please remember this discussion is on the WG5 list and change the address when you "reply". Thanks to Van for spotting the typo. Yes, "" (in the edit for [95:33-]) should have been "" (as you might have guessed, the name of the new syntax term went through a couple of revisions, and I missing changing one of the earlier versions). Van writes: >it seems >that the revised R522 at [96:26] results in not being able to declare >the bounds for a rank-one array." See the immediately preceding edit, already in the previous version, which says [96:24-25] 5.3.8.6p1 Replace sentence "An implied-shape array ... ." with "A named constant is declared to be an implied-shape array by an or an ." {Now two ways of declaring implied shape.} is the ambiguous "might be assumed-size" rank-one case. is the unambiguous rank>1 case. So there should be no problem. (BTW the edit for [96:26] in the interp was wrong, and the draft corrigendum attempted an incorrect fix, but I *think* the version in mjc002.txt works properly.) Cheers, -----Original Message----- From: Van Snyder Date: 平成 25年12月5日 5:46 To: fortran standards email list for J3 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5125) [ukfortran] [ Draft corrigendum 3] In the attachment mjc002.txt to the original message, the edit for [95:33-] defines a syntax term but the text and later syntax terms refer to . Maybe I haven't worked through all the details correctly, but it seems that the revised R522 at [96:26] results in not being able to declare the bounds for a rank-one array. Since this is the last F2008 corrigendum, I don't object to correcting the problems using ballot comments. On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 15:27 +0900, Malcolm Cohen wrote: > I wrote: > > Please answer the following question "Is N1995, with the references and > > notes removed, acceptable for submission to SC22 for publication as > > Corrigendum 3 for Fortran 2008?" in one of these ways. > > > > 3) No, for the following reasons. > > > > The edits for F08/0086 do not work. This interp must be failed and > > restarted, > > and the corrigendum must be altered to remove it. > > Bill Long replied: > >I'm happy with this comment. But what is the larger plan? > > > >1) The rest of the Corrigendum is OK and your vote changes to YES if the > >F08/0086 edits are removed and we move forward with what remains, or > > I have not checked the rest of the corrigendum yet... > > >2) Fixing the problem raised by F08/0086 is sufficiently important to > >put the Corrigendum on hold until it is repaired and put up for another > >vote, considering that this is the final Corrigendum for F2008. > > If we follow the normal "back to square one" procedure, that is a delay until > April at the most wildly optimistic (February meeting + J3 letter ballot + WG5 > letter ballot). > > Here is a third alternative: > 3) New corrected edits are unanimously agreed by WG5 and J3 > during the Corrigendum ballot. A single "No" vote should definitely > send this interp back to stage one (but not the rest of the corrigendum). > > I attach a corrected interp, the differences are: > > (i) New syntax term "" (I did not like my own suggestion > of ""). "assumed-implied" rather than "implied-assumed" because > assumed-size arrays are described first. > > (ii) I "improved" the edit for [95:33] cosmetically, as well as using the new > syntax term. > > (iii) Used the new syntax term in R522, twice. > > (iv) New edit for [96:28] to use the new syntax term in the rank > determination. > > (v) Removed NOTE (1) and reformatted the remainder. > > I think this is right this time, but who knows? > > If anyone is unconvinced that this is right, or is uncomfortable with the idea > of such a radical last-minute fix, we should send this back though the system > to > get a more leisurely review. > > Cheers, > _______________________________________________ > J3 mailing list > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 _______________________________________________ J3 mailing list J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. ________________________________________________________________________ -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.