From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Tue Aug 11 13:00:38 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom9 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom9@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 304083588C5; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:00:38 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 398 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:00:37 CEST Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47CB23571D3 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:00:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 84196 invoked from network); 11 Aug 2020 19:53:54 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 11 Aug 2020 19:53:54 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "'WG5 List'" References: <20200810230020.B9227357216@www.open-std.org> <20200811030137.155A5358343@www.open-std.org> <20200811073657.79C53358993@www.open-std.org> <20200811082510.4B4E1358993@www.open-std.org> <20200811083603.7E5AA358290@www.open-std.org> <98A1F99A-ED27-4BD8-924D-2E6EF3178464@att.net> <20200811091516.9E627358290@www.open-std.org> <20200811094418.E415E358290@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20200811094418.E415E358290@www.open-std.org> Subject: RE: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.6272) [J3] Fortran 90 and BOZ literals Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:53:54 +0900 Message-ID: <037d01d66fcd$b50dfd20$1f29f760$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQIMeSQk1pedNmqAhdwgB6QUThVhmwE1jHArAXedfDgB/Mh7rgH8YAzkAq3jZF4Cmk/vUQJ1INTuAinmE0GoQji7MA== Content-Language: ja Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk BTW, Fortran 90 (1991) predates PDF (1993), so whatever N692 is is = someone's attempt at a fixup. (And it's not groff - groff only appeared in 1990, a bit late for = typesetting a document we were working on several years prior. According = to Wikipedia, the "first stable version" of groff was November 1991, = several months after publication.) If I recall correctly, the Fortran 90 standard was typeset using = Sun-proprietary macros (and possible Sun-proprietary troff technology). = Furthermore, due to the use of proprietary technology, (again IIRC) that = troff source code was not supplied to other committee members. The = Fortran 95 source started out with a Framemaker reincarnation of Fortran = 90 (and I recall it had some glitches from the conversion process). Unfortunately, the one person who really knew what happened, and thus = could explain the details properly, has recently passed away; that is, = Walt Brainerd. So w.r.t. the Fortran 90 standard, the "gold standard" is the published = document. In particular, there was no PDF. If someone sometime somehow = could scan a published copy in, that would be useful as a historical = document, but apart from personal or committee use, would doubtless be a = violation of ISO copyright. Cheers, --=20 ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Corbett =20 Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 6:44 PM To: General J3 interest list Cc: WG5 List Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.6272) [J3] Fortran 90 and BOZ literals Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:14 AM, Shterenlikht, Anton via J3 = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On 11 Aug 2020, at 09:59, Robert Corbett via J3 = wrote: >>=20 >> The file >>=20 >> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/90/S8.115.pdf >>=20 >> contains a late draft of the >> Fortran 90 standard. I trust >> it more than I trust the N692 >> document. >=20 > Interesting document. > How close is it the published standard? > There are lots of handwritten notes - did those made it to the=20 > published version? >=20 > Just a few pages later, in 4.3.2.1 > the 4 examples of nondefault character literal constants apper blank=20 > in N692, while they are present in S8.115.pdf >=20 > Another glitch in N692 is in 4.3.2.1.1, last line before the numbered=20 > list, after: >=20 > "For the default character type, the only constraints on the collating = sequence are:" >=20 > there is: >=20 > @.EQ delim $$ @.EN >=20 > which is groff (or troff at that time?) gone bad - that groff command=20 > is meant to instruct groff to use the dollar sign as a delimiter for=20 > inline equation environment. > But seems it was interepreted as a literal text. >=20 > Perhaps somebody somewhere still has that g/troff src? > If so, we can try to fix it and produce the correct Postscript/PDF. >=20 > Anton _______________________________________________ ukfortran mailing list https://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran