From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom9=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Nov 22 03:54:29 2023 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 D9BFA356B71; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 03:54:29 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from nag-j.co.jp (bvdeuz19.secure.ne.jp [180.222.80.19]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D80AA356A61 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 03:54:27 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 49297 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2023 11:54:25 +0900 Received: from unknown (HELO Maru10) (218.42.159.105) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Nov 2023 11:54:25 +0900 From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "'sc22wg5'" References: <88db4232-2af2-47a2-9a28-f999095078f3@dmk.com> <20231120210233.6A33E356B79@www.open-std.org> <20231121065421.7C32D356B8E@www.open-std.org> <2B3E59A4-1FA3-4FDC-B508-2925B32B19CC@dancingbear.dev> <20231121193034.0DD4C356B04@www.open-std.org> <20231121194049.714EB356B6F@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20231121194049.714EB356B6F@www.open-std.org> Subject: RE: [ukfortran] [SC22WG5.6517] [J3] RE: Fwd: [SC 22 Convenors] JTC 1 plenary wrap-up - Electronic attachments to standard Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:54:25 +0900 Message-ID: <000001da1cef$343aef50$9cb0cdf0$@nag-j.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01DA1D3A.A4250850" X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQMqA/c4/4fmbyu11RV3vZS0nSfSoAHVT3mzAe3cfq0C6sKv+wGSPj6SAnaozDYBM5ieDQGpWEGHrXk3P3A= Content-Language: ja Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01DA1D3A.A4250850 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually, the reason we stopped doing a syntax rule annex was that the = procedure/program for making it failed, so it was wrong. =20 As it was not strictly necessary, removing the annex was a lot easier = than writing a new program from scratch. =20 It may have been around the time that rule numbers or constraint numbers = exceeded 99 in a single clause. =20 =E2=80=A6just in case someone thinks they can take what still remains in = the Makefile and reactivate it. That won=E2=80=99t work =E2=80=93 or = worse, it may appear to, but produce subtly incorrect output. =20 Cheers, --=20 ..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo. =20 From: Van Snyder =20 Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 4:41 AM To: sc22wg5 Subject: [ukfortran] [SC22WG5.6517] [J3] RE: Fwd: [SC 22 Convenors] JTC = 1 plenary wrap-up - Electronic attachments to standard =20 On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 11:30 -0800, Van Snyder via J3 wrote: On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 10:11 -0800, Gary Klimowicz via J3 wrote: It's about it being in plain text, not in PDF form. As an Annex, they're = difficult to manipulate textually. =20 As plain text, I can image tools we could write for automatically = generating parser definitions (especially for formal definition tools = like SDF or Maude). Identifying changes between version would be much = easier. =20 That could probably be done from the LaTeX source. Would it be helpful = if Malcolm posted a tarball of it (including the j3 class definition), = if not for every draft, then for every revision and after every = corrigendum? =20 On Nov 21, 2023, at 09:54, Long, Bill F > wrote: Such lists would seem more natural in an Annex as part of the standard.=20 =20 They were at one time an annex, that we decided not to typeset when = everybody was printing a draft to take to meetings. It might be easy to = turn it on again, then use "pdftk" or something like it to separate it = to a different file. =20 =20 The LaTeX process to create an annex of the syntax rules and constraints = would write them into an extra file, that LaTeX would then read and = typeset at the indicated point. That file could be used, rather than = trying to extract the syntax rules and constraints from the complete = LaTeX source. If the j3 class definition is still set up to create the = annex, collecting the extra file would occur, then, if the annex as PDF = is not desired, simply comment out the line to print it. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01DA1D3A.A4250850 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, the reason we = stopped doing a syntax rule annex was that the procedure/program for = making it failed, so it was wrong.

 

As it was = not strictly necessary, removing the annex was a lot easier than writing = a new program from scratch.

 

It may have = been around the time that rule numbers or constraint numbers exceeded 99 = in a single clause.

 

=E2=80=A6just in case someone thinks they can take = what still remains in the Makefile and reactivate it. That won=E2=80=99t = work =E2=80=93 or worse, it may appear to, but produce subtly incorrect = output.

 

Cheers,

--

..............Malcolm Cohen, NAG = Oxford/Tokyo.

 

From: Van Snyder = <van.snyder@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November = 22, 2023 4:41 AM
To: sc22wg5 = <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: [ukfortran] = [SC22WG5.6517] [J3] RE: Fwd: [SC 22 Convenors] JTC 1 plenary wrap-up - = Electronic attachments to standard

 

On Tue, = 2023-11-21 at 11:30 -0800, Van Snyder via J3 = wrote:

On = Tue, 2023-11-21 at 10:11 -0800, Gary Klimowicz via J3 = wrote:

It's = about it being in plain text, not in PDF form. As an Annex, they're = difficult to manipulate textually.

 

As plain text, I can image tools we could write for = automatically generating parser definitions (especially for formal = definition tools like SDF or Maude). Identifying changes between version = would be much easier.

 

That could probably be done from the LaTeX source. = Would it be helpful if Malcolm posted a tarball of it (including the j3 = class definition), if not for every draft, then for every revision and = after every corrigendum?

 

On = Nov 21, 2023, at 09:54, Long, Bill F <william.long@hpe.com> = wrote:

Such lists = would seem more natural in an Annex as part of the standard. 

 

They were at one time an annex, that we decided not to = typeset when everybody was printing a draft to take to meetings. It = might be easy to turn it on again, then use "pdftk" or = something like it to separate it to a different = file.

 

 

The LaTeX process to = create an annex of the syntax rules and constraints would write them = into an extra file, that LaTeX would then read and typeset at the = indicated point. That file could be used, rather than trying to extract = the syntax rules and constraints from the complete LaTeX source. If the = j3 class definition is still set up to create the annex, collecting the = extra file would occur, then, if the annex as PDF is not desired, simply = comment out the line to print it.

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01DA1D3A.A4250850--