From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Fri Sep 5 13:06:25 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h85B6PLW028379 for sc22wg5-domo; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:06:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from mail22.messagelabs.com (mail22.messagelabs.com [62.231.131.211]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with SMTP id h85B6ICp028370 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:06:20 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from malcolm@nag.co.uk) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: malcolm@nag.co.uk X-Msg-Ref: server-18.tower-22.messagelabs.com!1062759979!587399 X-StarScan-Version: 5.0.7; banners=nag.co.uk,-,- Received: (qmail 2463 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2003 11:06:19 -0000 Received: from smtp-5.star.net.uk (212.125.75.74) by server-18.tower-22.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2003 11:06:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 17866 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2003 11:06:18 -0000 Received: from nagmx1.nag.co.uk (HELO nag.co.uk) (62.231.145.242) by smtp-5.star.net.uk with SMTP; 5 Sep 2003 11:06:18 -0000 Received: from brackley.nag.co.uk (brackley.nag.co.uk [192.156.217.21]) by nag.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00684 for ; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:06:06 +0100 (BST) Received: (from malcolm@localhost) by brackley.nag.co.uk (8.11.1/8.11.1) id h85B9t859401 for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:09:55 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from malcolm) From: Malcolm Cohen Message-Id: <200309051109.h85B9t859401@brackley.nag.co.uk> Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2973) Fiddling with paragraph numbers To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:09:55 +0100 (BST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk re Van's sample output. I don't like having both line numbers and paragraph numbers. Bog standard normal font is preferable to the alternatives. The explicit paragraph number stuff is fine, but I'd much prefer the macro to take the current "real" paragraph number and append something. Otherwise if the real paragraph numbers change the fake ones are no longer in order. (Yes, I realise that in that case one is likely to want to change the fake ones to real ones at that point, but there's no point in making life hard just so that the editor can make more typos inserting these things). I really don't like the strange things in 2.1, to wit - a paragraph without a paragraph number - some list items with paragraph numbers, some without. i.e. we should have a much stricter regime than that shown in the sample. I don't much care for paragraph references with the funny symbol either. Overall, the advantages of having paragraph numbers seem to be (1) obviate the need to count paragraphs when publishing corrigenda, and any possible confusion over what counts as a paragraph. (2) make it more reasonable to print a later revised version with some interpretations included, without altering "references" in subsequent interp requests. I'd count (1) as being extremely minor. It's not proved to be much of a problem in the past. As for (2), I'm not even sure it's an advantage. It doesn't allow one to trivially check or apply interps across document revisions because the text might have changed; so you'll still need both documents to look at. The disadvantages seem to be: (1) the work involved (2) the loss of line numbering (or alternatively, the confusion of having two systems in use at the same time). > Seriously, in the old days it was a pain to try and >process a paper from a previous**n meeting; getting the new page/line >numbers was just hard. I think this will remain hard for new document development, unless we don't want to insert any new features, delete misleading old text or move text around to a better location. > Permanent numbers will also make it > easier to fit F2003 interps into the next Fortran. If the numbers are really going to be permanent there's not going to be much call for a new Fortran, because we won't be able to fit very much extra into it before it collapses under the weight of paragraph numbering anomalies. At the moment we don't even have permanent subclause numbering! In any case, we could already work that way if we wanted, while still using the line numbers: just give the subclause number and (manually counted) paragraph number within that. It would not exactly be difficult to make it a rule to provide this information - and it probably ought to be a rule for interp processing at least, just to make corrigendum production easier. Cheers, -- ...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K. (malcolm@nag.co.uk) ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________