From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Wed Aug 27 12:24:41 1997 Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk ([130.246.8.100]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA15523 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:24:40 +0200 Received: from 130.246.8.20 by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:24:34 +0100 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id LAA03418; Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:24:36 +0100 Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:24:36 +0100 From: J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <199708271024.LAA03418@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk > To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: J3 Coco Review X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII In collaboration with David Epstein, Jeanne Martin, and Dick Hendrickson, I have amended the coco document in response to the J3 comments (see below). I have also changed the margins to accord with Miles' guidelines and have added a contents page. Also, I checked for poor page boundaries. I have called the amended document n1301a for the moment and put Postscript and Text versions on my ftp server jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk in the directory pub/wg5. Comments please. Given the small amount of change requested by J3, we think WG5 should go straight for a 'final' ballot. Best wishes, John. ................... These are the J3 comments and our responses: > > 1. Section 3.2.2, add to end of first sentence, "that is not a comment line". > Reason: We believe the intent is that coco source form rules mimic the free > source form rules in Part I, and without this addition, it is not clear that > the following is permitted: > > ?? IF (DEVELOPING) & > ?? > ?? & THEN Note 3.2 already provides an example to show that coco comments are permitted within coco directives, but the text does not make this as clear as it should. A bit more than J3 suggests is needed. We have made minor amendments to the text in 3.2.2, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2. > 2. Note 3.3, change "(Section 7)" to "(section 7)". Reason: Consistency This prompted us to look at the guidelines and we found that a. We should have 'clauses' and 'subclauses'. b. Subclauses should be references by number only. c. Tables should be mumbered through the text and not by section. We have therefore made more extensive changes to accord with the guidelines. > 3. Section 3.2.3, 2nd paragraph, change to, "A coco directive shall not have > more than the number of continuation lines permitted for free source form in > Part I. Reason: There will be one fewer incompatibility when Fortran 2000 > succeeds Fortran 95. Slightly reworded to : A coco directive shall not have more continuation lines than the number permitted for free source form in Part I. > 4. Section 4, 1st sentence, change to, "A named coco data object is a > constant or is a variable." Reason: This section is not dealing with > literal constants. Done. > 5. Sections 4-9: The same form should be used for constraints as is used in > Part 1, i.e., lines after the first should be indented. Done. > 6. Rule CCR502, change "name" to "" Done. > 7. Note 5.2, 1st sentence, change, "...by the general form in 5.2," to "...by > the general form in section 5.2,". Reason: avoid confusion with Note 5.2 > and Table 5.2 that appear in close proximity. No change - it would conflict with the guidelines and the it is anyway better now that we have 'Table 2'. > 8. Section 9, 1st sentence following list item (4), change to, "The mechanism > for...". Done. > 9. Section 9, 1st constraint following rule CCR902, change to, "A named > constant declared in the shall be declared as a constant > with the same type and value in an executed coco directive in the coco > program." Done and similar change made to the next constraint. > 10. Section 9, paragraph following Note 9.1, J3 recommends copying the lines > of the coco SET file at the end of the coco output. We now have: Unless DELETE or BLANK is specified, lines of the coco SET file are converted to comments by the same rules and are appended at the end of the output following a comment formed by applying the rule to the coco line ?? This was produced using the following SET file We have deleted 'directive' from the last line of page 18 so that coco comments are affected. We have add SET output to Note 9.2 and EXAMPLE 1. > 11. J3 notes that the program in Note 9.3 has no loop exit and suggests it be > terminated gracefully - preferably with the use of an IOSTAT specifier. We have added a test for the special comment line: PROGRAM RESTORE CHARACTER(LEN=135) :: LINE DO READ(*,'(A)')LINE IF (LINE(1:3)=='!?>') LINE(1:132) = LINE(4:135) IF (LINE== & '?? This was produced using the following SET file' & ) EXIT WRITE(*,'(A)')LINE(1:LEN_TRIM(LINE)) END DO END PROGRAM RESTORE