From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Wed Jan 8 22:07:48 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) id WAA36331 for sc22wg5-domo; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:07:48 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id WAA36326 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 22:07:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:01:35 -0800 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.164.107]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:51:11 -0800 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h08KpEL1031621 for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:51:14 -0800 Received: (from maine@localhost) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id h08KpEoq031617; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:51:14 -0800 From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <15900.36673.904543.891876@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 12:51:13 -0800 To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.2666) A partial comment about "Status of Repository items" In-Reply-To: <200301081945.UAA35106@dkuug.dk> References: <200301080913.KAA26654@dkuug.dk> <200301081945.UAA35106@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 8) "Honest Recruiter" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Van Snyder writes: > J3 agreed to recommend that the IOSTAT_END and > IOSTAT_EOR constants should be functions. I've written a paper 03-103 > that provides the edits to do that, and parallel edits to provide those > constants as arrays. The wording using constant arrays is cleaner. The wording may be cleaner, but the usage is not. I find it noticably simpler to write if (is_eof(my_status)) then than > if ( any(myStatus == iostat_eof) ) then... Note that the array suggestion *WAS* mentioned at the meeting and wasn't what passed. Note also my comment from my posting of a minute ago - although the issue of vendors who return multiple values was mentioned as the justification of this change, the vote taken did not include a suggestion to delete the requirement for a single value. There is some evidence that this is partly because many people didn't realize that there was such a requirement. Perhaps there would be a majority in favor of deleting the requirement. But I do *NOT* think it appropriate to assume the outcome of such a vote. Providing a function instead of a constant is not a change incompatable with f95 (since f95 has no such thing). The issue of incompatability might matter to some people, so that it is quite possible that you would get a different outcome if there actually were a vote to make an incompatable change. If the majority does want to make an incompatable change, I think that is an important enough issue to be voted on explicitly in such terms - not slipped in the "back door" as a consequence of a vote that failed to mention that it was such a change. And if people don't think this would be an change incompatable with f95, then we need and f95 interp, because I think it is. The reason I bring this up in particular response to the constant array suggestion is that a constant array makes it all but explicit that multiple values must be allowed (even though I maintain that it still contradicts other words in the draft). It is, after all, really nonsensical to require that it be an array of size 1. The function doesn't necessarily imply multiple values, however. It is a plausible style preference to like the function form instead of the constant form, even for the scalar case. (It isn't my personal style preference, but it is a plausible one). -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain