From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Mon Dec 14 16:45:21 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 CD3AD35672E; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:45:21 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mail-qt1-f181.google.com (mail-qt1-f181.google.com [209.85.160.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 690CE3566AB for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 16:45:21 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt1-f181.google.com with SMTP id u21so12107410qtw.11 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 07:45:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stevelionel.com; s=google; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hlAQgcDjVJwVOtq82xD/8tjIBvu4I0YIlfywSe+o+7w=; b=m9LBufVqdp0Tbk/jH7fUSHjD3MT3pSJgK4gIaaG2AkLULSSfON0PNdqLrv6gkr7j9I 4ITJ9OanOANIUrequjd0jBY+AHQ0/Dl0Q7wHqfwqxegdRc1UwqvelG4k85xA1kYcUij1 cpppEwm+4BARtRBUBIuM84JmFwERmo683AnIw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hlAQgcDjVJwVOtq82xD/8tjIBvu4I0YIlfywSe+o+7w=; b=UlnTzrfIY7ZnShjr+K/yANnN/gOlSvL7g5UO4IzccobkMcRAFZKj+3DWScao1VPOCo Syh7C8pWs3+8yg+uUZcT0lW3ClA20me+t3IdkqQg3DWGjXGkmdV7Mvf+IW7uOm0+RIWg iyhB6gUhuz2IfBia28qiDeF2HwMp46srGDHYl14LklSOr0cso0xlnSJc6up5PTY9kvpO tWhnxMPywnmLEKBNz+toEwnJEpsPyqEE7iLZ/HxvoGKcP+w13qKUTHi35Ws+O5v++Hf+ 8CGfmU6M5tVexjN5+Bx03bRyObvSrONIs8TyD+w+CuxIuqRontO+SzDtqo+230K8MzOX X42w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532VLsEGlUY5voclYLBW87ywv7KRl0oErH0DQNz13bHnaDMDE9I9 X4F9HT52O9av9Lp4uUhOZGs+D7UMfG3AEtvj X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxduWbGDMtFt9HyZrud2lK8L3AsTz3etQwN8C4YtY53t0lYgSAQ5Zrn+JJXcMBA2xUfUHvN1g== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5901:: with SMTP id 1mr32309987qty.350.1607960719629; Mon, 14 Dec 2020 07:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.33] ([71.169.142.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v137sm15366868qka.110.2020.12.14.07.45.18 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Dec 2020 07:45:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [J3] (SC22WG5.6312) Comments on Corrigendum 1 draft To: WG5 List References: <20201214152117.5C3B835672E@www.open-std.org> From: Steve Lionel X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett Message-ID: Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 10:45:18 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201214152117.5C3B835672E@www.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk

I inadvertently left out Bob Corbett's comments:

My vote on the draft of Corrigendum 1 for
Fortran 2018 is Approval with comments.
The issue raised in my first comment must
be addressed. If the text being edited
had been normative, my vote would have
been to Disapprove.

Robert Corbett representing Corbett

--------------------------------------------

Comment 1 (C.1):

The edit to C.1 unintentionally changes the
meaning of the second paragraph of C.1. I
suspect that the fix should be to add an
edit to the change the word "two" in the
second paragraph of C.1 to "three".

--------------------------------------------

Comment 2 (16.9.161):

The changes that the edit says are to be
applied to the first and third sentences
the third paragraph of 16.9.161 should be
applied to the second and fourth sentences
of the third paragraph of 16.9.161.

--------------------------------------------

Comment 3 (16.10.2.13):

The comma in the new sentence is unnecessary.
Normally, a comma would not appear in such a
context. If the sentence were longer, the
comma would be allowed to provide clarity.
In the case of the edit, if more clarity
were needed (I do not think it is), I would
replace ", and" with "; it".

--------------------------------------------

Comment 4:

The phrase "among its sibling teams" is
problematic. Normally, one's siblings do
not include oneself. In this case, a team
is among that team's sibling teams. I do
not suggest addressing this issue in the
Corrigendum.

On 12/14/2020 10:21 AM, Steve Lionel via J3 wrote:

Thanks to all who sent me comments/votes on the Corrigendum 1 draft. Below are the individual comments. David, please consider the comments and incorporate them into a new draft. Thanks.

Steve

Malcolm:

Approval with comments. Comments marked *** need to be corrected before publication IMO.

Comment 1 (cosmetic): all the “index sibling team” instructions should be “index sibling teams”, as the term is plural not singular (the wording for a “sibling team” term would have been more complicated).

Comment 2 (trivial cosmetic): the locator [101:13,14] should be [101:13-14] (hyphen not comma).

*** Comment 3 (editorial) for [167:8], the Subclause number should be “10.2.2.4” not “10.2.4.4”.

Comment 4 (editorial) for [175:21], the inserted text should have the reference “(19.6.8)” appended (there is no reference after the immediately preceding “variable definition context”, but that is because there is a ref earlier in the sentence).

Comment 5 (cosmetic): the locator [401:24-45] should be [401:24-25].

*** Comment 6 (technical) for [528:22+] this needs an additional edit, to paragraph two at [528:23], change “two” to “three” (because we just added an item to the list).

BTW I reviewed the paper three times... once initially (fairly brief), the second time when I went through and applied those edits to the 007, and a third time when I carefully compared the paper to revised 007. If there are further changes I will modify the 007 accordingly.

Brian:

I vote 'Approval.' Thanks.

Tom:

Approval

Anton:

Approval with comments

Comment 1 - a typo:

    Subclause 10.2.4.4
                        [167:8] f18/011

    In the third paragraph of the subclause, replace
    "elemental intrinsic procedure even if the pointer object is not elemental."
    with
    "elemental intrinsic procedure, even though the pointer object is not elemental."

This should be Subclause 10.2.2.4, not 10.2.4.4.

Reuben:

Approve.

Bill:

I'll have to vote “approval with comment” since I did find one irregularity. In 18-007r1, which I assume is the base document for the changes, Subclause 10.2.4.4 has only 2 paragraphs, yet the edit for that subclause begins “In the third paragraph…”. It appears something has gone wrong here. Probably the subclause number, since 10.2.4.4 is related to FORALL that does not seem relevant to the content of 10.2.4.4.

Nathan:

Approval.

Ondrej:

Approval with comments

I read the documents, and haven't seen any mistakes. But I haven't checked against the documents that were voted upon to ensure everything was included with the same wording.