From Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk Sat Feb 3 14:10:43 1996 Received: from oxmail3.ox.ac.uk (oxmail3.ox.ac.uk [163.1.2.9]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id OAA19708 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 1996 14:10:39 +0100 Received: from vax.ox.ac.uk (actually host vax) by oxmail3 with SMTP (PP); Sat, 3 Feb 1996 13:10:31 +0000 Received: from 163.1.85.1 by vax.ox.ac.uk (MX V4.2 VAX) with SMTP; Sat, 03 Feb 1996 13:10:26 +0000 X-Sender: MELLIS@vax.ox.ac.uk Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 13:13:55 +0000 To: maine From: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk (Miles Ellis) Subject: WG5 requested corrections to Fortran 95 CD (FOR X3J3/136) CC: jwagener (Jerry Wagener), sc22wg5 WOULD ANY X3J3 MEMBERS WHO ARE ATTENDING MEETING 136 IN LAS VEGAS PLEASE TAKE A COPY OF THIS MESSAGE WITH THEM IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT RICHARD MAINE, JERRY WAGENER (AND ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED) HAVE A COPY. MANY THANKS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard, My apologies for not getting back to you before now. As you will have gathered, I have had a little (!) local difficulty which has disrupted my email. There have been very few responses to the informal ballot that I sent out by both post and email before Christmas, from which I assume that everyone is broadly in agreement that you have done an excellent job in incorporating the edits approved in San Diego by WG5 and those delegated to X3J3 (;-). On behalf of WG5 may I take this opportunity to thank you most warmly for all that you have done (and are continuing to do) in such a conscientious and timely manner on behalf of WG5 and, indeed, SC22. The only formal responses to the ballot that I have received with any comments are from Alla Gorelik, David Muxworthy and yourself. You obviously don't need your own, comprehensive comments, but I append Alla's and David's coments to this note. In addition there has been email correspondence from various people, especially in conection with the UK's substantive point 5 which was rejected by X3J3. Since this was a substantive national CD ballot comment I hope that X3J3 will attempt to deal with this in a manner which will satisfy the UK's subsequent comments, as expressed by John Reid and Malcolm Cohen (and referred to by David Muxworthy, below.) Other than that, I would like to remind everyone that the document has passed its CD ballot and will be submitted to DIS processing later in the Spring. NO NEW TECHNICAL ISSUES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THIS STAGE, THEREFORE. Have a good meeting! I look forward to hearing that you, with X3J3's help as necessary, have resolved these few outstanding matters. With best wishes, Miles Ballot comments from Alla Gorelik: ================================== Some comments of WG5 N1101 (Apr.1995) have not been reflected in WG5 N1166. These comments are given below. 1. General comment to Chapter 13. On my opinion one pair of brackets for all optional arguments in the head of intrinsics is not correct, because some of them may present but others may be absent. Two ways for correction are given by means of an example. The first variant is: SUM (ARRAY, DIM [,MASK]) or SUM (ARRAY [,MASK]) The second variant is: SUM (ARRAY [[,DIM] [,MASK]]) Only array location functions were changed correctly. Array reduction functions were changed with misprints. There are: 253:31 (13.14.67) 256:19 (13.14.72) 260:27 (13.14.83) 268:37 (13.14.105) For other intrinsics similar changes were not made. There are: 234:35 (13.14.20) 223:26 (13.11.2) 237:40 (13.14.27) 224:35 (13.11.6) 240:22 (13.14.33) 226:17 (13.11.17) 262:1 (13.14.86) 226:20 (13.11.18) 263:27 (13.14.90) 226:32-33 (13.12) 265:29 (13.14.95) 226:37 (13.12) 269:31 (13.14.106) 226:39-40 (13.12) 2. a) 115:27, Section 7.5.4.1., after Note 7.52 The text: "it has no other attributes" is not quite correct. Rationale: The rank is also an attribute (see 47:2-3) and an index-name has also the rank equal zero. b) 280:41 and 280:45, Section 14.1.3. By the same reason the word "only" in two sentenses: "Its only attributes are the type and type parameter(s)..." is not quite correct. 3. I think it would be useful to uniform describing of constraints in section 5.2. Some constraints repeat the correspondence constraints from 5.1, (first constraints in 5.2.4, 5.2.6.), but in other cases they are not repeated (5.2.9.), in some cases they are repeated partially (5.2.7, 5.2.8). 4. 316:12, C4.5 Replace i with I 5. 73:3 Section 6. Here term "a reference" is used, but in 2.5.5 this term is defined as "a data object reference". Perhaps it is worth to introduce in 2.5.5 the term "reference" that is a data object reference or a procedure reference or a module reference (by analogy with the term "keyword" in 2.5.2). 6. Question Suppose there is an actual array argument of some intrinsic procedure while the corresponding dummy argument is mentioned in the Standard as a scalar. Does such a program conform to the Standard? If not how can be treated Note 13.8 (236:35-36, Section 13.14.25)? Alla Gorelik --------------------------- Ballot comments from David Muxworthy: ===================================== Does WG5 N1166 accurately reflect the decisions made by WG5 in its response to the comments received during the CD approval ballot on CD 1539-1? ------ YES | x | ------ NO | | If NO, please supply details of what has been done ------ incorrectly. Actually there was a trivial glitch in the implementation of an edit on p301 (old), p 305 (new), pointed out by John Reid in an e-mail to the SC22WG5 list. I have not found any other errors in the sense of inconsistency between WG5 decisions and N1166, although I have found that the uncontentious UK suggestion of making the fonts of "FORTRAN 66" and "FORTRAN 77" consistent was apparently lost between the beginning and the end of the WG5 meeting; detailed edits have subsequently been supplied direct to the editor, as has information on a handful of trivial typos I found. More seriously perhaps, UK substantive points 5 & 6 were unresolved at the WG5 meeting and were passed to X3J3 for resolution. John and Malcolm are still unhappy with the outcome. Finally, I hope WG5 will express its gratitude and congratulations to the editor for producing N1166 so quickly and so accurately. (signed) ..........David Muxworthy................... ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Miles Ellis Director: Educational Technology Resources Centre University of Oxford, 37-41 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JF, ENGLAND Telephone: +44 1865 270528 Fax: +44 1865 270527 Email: Miles.Ellis@etrc.ox.ac.uk WWW: http://www.etrc.ox.ac.uk/Personal/Miles_Ellis.html