J3/03-159r1 Date: 2003 Apr 2 To: J3 From: Dan Nagle Subject: Edits In Response To Public Comment #20 J3 previously agreed that changes were needed in response to public comment #20. That document enumerated 15 separate individual points. I (= MI) summarize proposed edits for the first 14 of these points, in which case I also include the text of the original point. Some original text is elided. Point 1 The J3 response to point 1 is in paper 03-135r2. Point 4 >4. technical comment: The standard should allow boz-literal- >constants larger than the maximum integer when they are used >as arguments to DBLE, REAL, or CMPLX. > J3 response to point 4 was that J3 does not agree that there is a problem with the description of the use of BOZ literal constants as arguments to the CMPLX, DBLE and REAL intrinsic functions, but investigation of your comment reveals that there is a problem with DATA: The constant ought to be interpreted to have the same kind as the corresponding variable. J3 will recommend that this be repaired. J3 reposnse to point 4 is that upon further investigation, we do not want to introduce this functionality and so this change will not be made. Point 11 The J3 response to point 11 is that upon further investigation J3 believes that there is no problem here. In different scoping units a procedure may have an explicit interface or an implicit interface. The first sentence refers to the nature of the interface within the procedure itself. The second sentence refers to the interface in a different scoping unit. Point 14 EDITS: 343:25-26 Delete the paragraph and replace with "Example. Assume a processor supports 2 integer kinds 32 and 64 with integer representation methods r=2 and q=31 and q=63 respectively. On this processor SELECTED_INT_KIND(9) has the value 32 and SELECTED_INT_KIND(10) has the value 64." 344:12 Change '.' to 'and does not have a less precise approximation method.' The J3 response is to do the above edits.