From WEAVER@stlvm7.vnet.ibm.com Sat Aug 22 02:38:34 1992
Received: from vnet.ibm.com by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8)
	id AA02669; Sat, 22 Aug 92 02:38:34 +0200
Message-Id: <9208220038.AA02669@dkuug.dk>
Received: from STLVM7 by vnet.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4689;
   Fri, 21 Aug 92 20:41:22 EDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:34:51 PDT
From: WEAVER@stlvm7.vnet.ibm.com
To: ljo@ssi
Cc: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: attached document: An edit and a discussion item
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

Please add to premeeting distribution.

Thanks, Dick W.
  IBM D48/D332,555 Bailey Ave,PO 49023,San Jose Ca 95161-9023
  internet: weaver@stlvm7.vnet.ibm.com
  408-463-2956, fax ...-3114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     To: X3J3                                                      92-
   From: Dick Weaver


Subject: A proposed edit and a discussion item, re maintenance of Fortran 90

Having grown weary of reading "execution of the executable program" and noting
that all programs are executable (there are nonexecutable program units, but
not programs), I propose the following edit:

     Change all occurrences (about 86) of  "executable program"
                                       to  "program"

both in text and in syntax (R201).

With this change the 2nd pp in 1.4, to pick an example, would read:

    A program (2.2.1) is a standard-conforming program if it uses only those
    forms and relationships described herein and if the program has an
    interpretation according to this International Standard.  A program unit
    (2.2) conforms to this International Standard if it can be included
    in a program in a manner that allows the program to be standard conforming.

While this proposed edit is similar to my proposal of several years ago
to change "symbolic name" to "name" (when I couldn't find any names that
were not symbolic), its timing is quite different.  "Symbolic Name"
was changed to "Name" during development of Fortran 90; this proposal to
change "Executable Program" to "Program" is being made as part of the
maintenance of Fortran 90.

X3J3 must choose between two maintenance modes:

   (1) Static, minimal change.  If there is not an "error", X3J3 doesn't
       touch it.

   (2) Continuous improvement.  Improving the quality of the document
       is an established X3J3 goal.

I believe the document can be substantially improved, and recommend that X3J3
adopt a policy of continuous improvement.  That improvement is
possible is not a reflection on the the efforts of John Reid, Mike Metcalf,
Lawrie Schonfelder, Brian Smith, Kurt Hirchert, and many others in creating
Fortran 90.  Indeed, I am continually impressed by how complete it is and how
well it holds together, given the sometimes tortuous path followed
in its creation.  Never-the-less significant editorial improvement is both
possible and, I believe, desirable.

I recommend that X3J3 adopt a policy of continuous improvement and:

   (1) put a subgroup in place to identify the edits necessary to conform
       to ISO drafting and presentation requirements.  While ISO approved
       Fortran 90 without full conformance, we should make every effort
       to conform at the next publication.  And start now.

   (2) request the current subgroups to convert most section notes (Annex C)
       to footnotes.  We learned too late that footnotes were possible.
       Footnotes have the advantage of being flagged in the text and on the
       same page; readers of the standard will see and read footnotes.
       Annex C section notes are, in my opinion, rarely read.

   (3) Review and upgrade the index.  Compare, for example, the 6 entries
       beginning "block" [p363] to the 13 headings [p346] for words beginning
       with "block".  X3J3 should evaluate if the quality of the document
       would be improved by an upgraded index that eliminated the need for
       Annex F, "Permuted Index for Headings"  (I suggest the answer is
       "yes"; that asking users to merge two indexes where one is by page
       and one is by section is NOT user friendly).

   (4) continue to simplify and clarify the text with edits such as that
       proposed above.  X3J3 should have an obsession with document quality.

   (5) Review approved and future interpretation requests to see if additional
       footnotes annotating specific topics would be appropriate.  When
       discussions at three meetings and dozens of email messages
       end with "no change", I suspect we've lost something.

Thanks
Dick W.