From maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov Thu Jan 25 21:35:49 1996 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (altair.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.34.72]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA12555 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 21:35:45 +0100 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA11398; Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:13:36 +0800 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 12:13:36 +0800 Message-Id: <9601252013.AA11398@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> From: Richard Maine To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: editorial changes to interp 148 content-length: 0 I made a few editorial changes (subject, of course, to any objections) in the process of putting the interp 148 edits into the f95 draft. The first sentence of the edit originally read The pseudorandom number generator accessed by RANDOM_SEED and RANDOM_NUMBER maintains a seed that is updated during the execution of RANDOM_NUMBER and that may be specified or returned by RANDOM_SEED. In order to improve the line breaking, I changed "accessed" to "used". The phrase "... generator used by RANDOM_NUMBER" appears in the description of RANDOM_SEED, so there is clear precedence for that wording. In considering whether it was 100% correct to say that RANDOM_SEED also "uses" the generator, I noticed that that part of the statement was superfluous anyway, as the role of RANDOM_SEED is already explicitly stated later in the same sentence. Thus, the revised sentence now reads The pseudorandom number generator used by RANDOM_NUMBER maintains a seed that is updated during the execution of RANDOM_NUMBER and that may be specified or returned by RANDOM_SEED. Side note to John Reid: Nothing really wrong with the original, so no need to change the above in corrigendum 3. I was mostly motivated by fixing the line break, though I do think the result very minorly better. An unrelated edit applies to the original sentence The value specified by PUT need not be the same as the value returned by GET in an immediately subsequent reference to RANDOM_SEED. This is phrased as a requirement on the value specified by PUT, which is backwards. It sounds like we are discussing whether the user needs to be prescient and figure out what value is going to be returned by the subsequent GET before he/she can figure out what is allowed in the PUT. I reversed the logic to read The value returned by GET need not be the same as the value specified by PUTT in an immediately preceding reference to RANDOM_SEED. Corresponding to this change, I changed "SEED1 need not equal SEED2" to "SEED2 need not equal SEED1". Likewise, I changed "X1 equals X2" to "X2 equals X1". Finally, the statement When the values differ, the use of either value as the PUT argument in a subsequent call to RANDOM_SEED will result in the same sequence of pseudorandom numbers being generated. is presumably giving a requirement. (I certainly don't see how it can be deduced from other material). Therefore, I used "shall" for the f95 version instead of "will". (Presumably "must" is more appopriate for the f90 style). -- Richard Maine maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov