To: J3 Members J3/16-266r1 From: Van Snyder & Steve Lionel Subject: Comments on Clause 13 References: 16-007r2 Date: 2016 October 11 1. Edits -------- [277:7-8 13.7.2.3.8p2 Input/output rounding mode] Replace "decimal value" with "decimal or hexadecimal value" twice. [280:16 13.7.6p3 User-defined derived type editing] Replace "that derived type" with "the derived type of the item". [281:6-7 13.8.1.2p1 T, TL and TR editing] Replace "the left tab ... of that record" with "character position one of that record becomes the left tab limit" {because this is easier to parse (and shorter) than the existing inside-out phrase}. [289:29 13.11.3.3 Namelist input values] Before the sentence beginning "Such a sequence", inset the sentence "The delimiters may be apostrophes or quotes; the value of the , if any, in the for an is ignored." [289:34+ NOTE 13.36 13.11.3.3 Namelist input values] Delete the first and third sentences of this note, which read as normative text; they have been inserted in the previous edit. The note remains with the sentence "The delimiter is required..." [290:2 13.11.3.4p1(3) Null vaues] Insert "nonblank" before "value separator". [291:21 13.11.4.3p3 Namelist output records] Replace "will be produced by namelist formatting" with "is placed". [291:23 13.11.4.3p3 Namelist output records] Replace "is produced by namelist formatting" with "is placed in the output record". 2. Optional edits at the editor's discretion -------------------------------------------- [273:27 13.7.2.3.3p1 E and D editing] [274:12 13.7.2.3.4p2 EN editing] [275:8 13.7.2.3.5p2 ES editing] Replace the comma before "otherwise" with a semicolon. 3. Rejected edits ----------------- [267:20-21 C1306] Replace the constraint: "C1306 (R1308) shall be positive for L or A edit descriptors [and may be positive or zero for all other edit descriptors]. {Because the syntax for doesn't allow a sign. (This adds no value.) [269:22-32 13.4p9] Replace "in a manner identical to the way it is positioned when" with "as if by"; delete "is processed". {Compare to [278:35 13.7.4p5].} (The text on 278 adds a much longer description of the process that would be necessary to repeat here. The current wording is fine.) [270:7-8 13.5p4] Replace "in a manner identical to the way it is positioned when" with "as if by"; delete "is processed". {Compare to [278:35 13.7.4p5].} (See above.) [271:15+ 13.7.2.1p1(3)] Insert a note: "NOTE 13.7a The effect of the scale factor is described in 13.8.5." (Nowhere here is the scale factor even mentioned.) [273:3 13.7.2.3.2p7 F editing] Append a sentence: "The scale factor has no effect on hexadecimal input editing." {If it's true. It should also be stated in 13.8.5. Compare to [274:9 13.7.2.3.4p1].} (This topic needs to be explored further - a separate paper will be written for it.) [276:2- NOTE 13.13+ ES edit descriptor] Insert a note: "NOTE 13.13a The effect of the ESw.dEe edit descriptor is the same as the effect of the 1PEw.dEe descriptors." (While true, such a note doesn't add value.) [276:10 13.7.2.3.6p2] Insert "decimal" before "digits". (Unnecessary - this text is discussing the number of digits - what those digits are is described in line 21.) [277:25 13.7.2.4p1] Append a sentence "The scale factor has no effect on B, O, or Z editing." {If it's true.} (See edit for 273:3 above.) [282:14 13.8.5p1] Insert "only" before "the editing done...". (Unnecessary.) [285:23 13.10.3.2p3] Replace " in the input list becomes" with "s in the input list become" {because there might be more than one of them}. (The existing text already allows for that.) [289:34+1-5 NOTE 13.36] The first and third sentences of NOTE 13.36 appear to be normative, and the first sentence is (improperly) written as normative text. Make the first and third sentences normative, in a paragraph at [289:34+ 13.11.3.3p7+. Leave the second sentence in the note. (Replaced with an edit in section 1.) 4. Questions and comments without edits --------------------------------------- JOR did not investigate these questions. [281:4-7 13.8.1.2p1] The relationship of the left tab limit to a data transfer statement executed after a nonadvancing data transfer statement to the same unit should be explicitly specified. It shouldn't be necessary to prove a theorem involving "immediately prior to nonchild data transfer." [282:13-30 13.8.5] The relationship of P editing to hexadecimal input during F editing should be described here. The relationship of P editing to a data transfer statement executed after a nonadvancing data transfer statement should be obvious here. Something like "The value of $k$ is zero at the beginning of execution of a [nonchild?] data transfer statement." If that's true. [283:24-29 13.10.2p2] Can r be zero? [285:24+1-6 NOTE 13.31] NOTE 13.31 is probably not precisely correct in using the term "a list-directed input record" if list-directed input occurs after a nonadvancing input statement. Perhaps "all blanks encountered during list-directed input" would be better. [287:8-13 13.10.4p9-10] If character sequences are both preceded and followed by value separators, null values would be produced. This contradicts 13.10.4p12. [287:18+1-2 NOTE 13.33] Is the length of a list-directed output record bounded by the RECL= specification in the OPEN statement? [287:29-38 13.11.2p2] More needs to be said about constraints and restrictions on , especially concerning pointer and allocatable components, whether a pointer component can appear after a with nonzero rank, whether two s with nonzero rank can appear, .... [288:23-289:39 13.11.3.3] Subclause 13.11.3.3 could be substantially shortened and simplified by reference to list-directed input. [289:1 13.11.3.3p1] Can r be zero? [290:2 13.11.3.4p1(3)] This appears to imply that input to an array A using "A= ,10" specifies a value for A(3), i.e., there are two null values. The discussion of blanks as null values appears to contradict subclause 13.11.3.5. [291:12+1-2 NOTE 13.40] Is the length of a namelist output record bounded by the RECL= specification in the OPEN statement?