From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Sep 9 17:11:59 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h89FBxiF002440 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 17:11:59 +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 mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h89F9uCp002402 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 17:11:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for sc22wg5@dkuug.dk; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:06:49 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.20.211]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:09:58 -0700 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6473435769; Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:09:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <16221.60739.261760.186116@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:09:55 -0700 To: WG5 Subject: (SC22WG5.2986) Possible comments In-Reply-To: <200309091251.h89Cpw5t000146@dkuug.dk> References: <200309091251.h89Cpw5t000146@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.4 (patch 12) "Portable Code" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk John Reid writes: > Here are some draft edits to go with my personal vote. Any comments? No qualms about any except for this one: > [430:20] Change 'An ... program.' to 'A program unit, common block, > external procedure, procedure binding label, or variable that has > the BIND attribute.' > [The glossary entry was not updated when 16.1 was revised.] This isn't a complete list. See [406:1]. I generally think that it is better to have definitions based on meaning instead of definitions that are just lists of things. To me, a list of things like that is seldom a real definition, but rather is a conclusion from the definition. However, we haven't crafted words for the term "global entity", so I suppose we could just make do with the list for now. Might at least add those 2 things to the list for consistency with 16.1. Better, IMO, would be to delete that glossary entry instead of trying to either give a complete list or craft words for a definition. After your (appropriate) fix at 255:35, grep reveals that the only uses of the term "global entity" are localized in 16.1 (unless I missed one where the words are split across source lines). Seems like anyone reading 16.1 is already going to be looking at the list there and won't be particularly helped by duplicating it to the glossary. I don't object to completing the list in the glossary. I just think that deleting it would be a slightly better fix. (Best might be to craft a real definition, but I don't have good words handy and this probably isn't the time to try to craft them). -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; Richard.Maine@nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain