From owner-sc22wg5 Tue Jul 16 18:29:27 2002 Received: from nameserv.rl.ac.uk (nameserv.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.129]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA47126 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:29:27 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk) Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk [130.246.8.20]) by nameserv.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA08702 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:29:57 +0100 Received: (from jkr@localhost) by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id RAA01438 for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:33:37 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:33:37 +0100 (BST) From: John Reid Message-Id: <200207161633.RAA01438@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Edits to the draft standard MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" WG5, I have started a serious read of the draft standard and am preparing three papers for J3: Edits re interfacing with C Major edits Minor edits I was going to send my current draft of my major-edits paper to J3 for comment, but if I send it to WG5 it gets to J3 anyway and this is a joint meeting. Here it is. Comments please. I may well have goofed and if so would like to know sooner rather than later. Best wishes, John. ..................... 02-xxy To: J3 From: John Reid Subject: Major edits Date: 16 July 2002 43:10-11. Change the constraint to 'Each bound in the shall be an initialization expression (7.1.7). [This is the wording in Corrigendum 1 to F95. I believe that the present wording will lead to an inconsistency with f95. See also C550 on p. 79.] 43:14-16. Change 'a specification ... thereof' to 'an initialization expression'. [See previous edit.] 44:25-28. Replace by R442 generic-binding is GENERIC [, binding-attr-list ] :: # # generic-spec [=> binding-list] C446 (R442) The shall be a single binding that is or a list of procedure names. [Generic bindings expand through inheritance (see 57:2-3). We normally keep all the specifics of the parent except those that are overridden. I see no point in specifying a single specific with when the binding is deferred (). Also, I think it should be permitted to omit the binding list when the parent's generic is required without change]. 47:19-22. Delete paragraph. [It is wrong, since the first and second sentences are inconsistent for sub-sub-components. It is also incomplete. Why try this, given that the concept has already been defined in the previous paragraph?] 50:4-5. Replace by The interface of a specific binding specified with is that of if present or that of the parent type otherwise. The interface of a specific binding specified with is that of the procedure. The interface of a generic binding contains the interfaces of all the procedures in its binding-list>s and all those of the parent type that have the same and are not overridden. 60:4. Change 'target' to ' or ' and delete the internal note. [Reasons are in the internal note.] 81:28. Start a new paragraph after 'pointer.' and change the sentence that follows to 'If a name that has the EXTERNAL attribute is the name of a dummy argument, it is a dummy procedure.' [This change is also needed for the sake of the sentence that follows.] 81:39. Delete. [This is very ambiguous. What does 'above' mean (how far up should I go)? What does 'it' refer to?] 164:11+. Replace the note by C810a (R822) The form shall be used if is not a named variable. [The text on page 165 does not work if there is no and is not named. Also, I took a long time (unsuccessfully) trying to understand exactly what the note meant.] 203:10-11. I do not understand '(or some portion thereof)'. The circumstances when only a portion of the value is used need to be explained. 266:15-18. Delete sentence. [Looks like an early draft of the previous sentence.] 411:34. Delete 'name'. [We need to cover variables that are subobjects.]