J3/03-229 Date: 4 Aug 03 To: WG5/J3 From: Richard Maine Subject: Edits incorporated in 03-007 This paper describes the changes in J3/03-007 relative to the previous f2k draft, J3/02-007R3. All page/line references are to J3/02-007R3 unless otherwise noted. Comments from the editor are in a separate paper; this one is restricted to changes made. It is my belief that the changes mentioned in this paper need no action unless J3 disagrees with the changes. In those cases where I believe action to be needed, I have duplicated or elaborated on the issue in the separate paper of comments. This includes edits from papers (all 03-): 101r2 103r3 104r2 105r3 108r3 109r1 110r2 111r2 112r2 113r3 114r1 115r1 116r2 118r3 119r1 120r1 121r1 122r1 124r1 125r2 126 127r2 130r2 131r1 134r2 135r3 138r1 139r2 140r1 142r1 144r2 145r1 146 147r1 152r2 153 154r3 155r1 156r1 157r1 158r3 159r2 162r2 164r1 165+166R1 167r2 170r1 171r2 172r1 173 174r1 176 177 178 179 180 183 184 186 188r1 The character set example in Note 4.14 was also redone in an attempt to use Japanese characters as in the f90 standard. The following papers were done as is: 103r3 108r3 109r1 110r2 111r2 112r2 114r1 115r1 116r2 118r3 121r1 124r1 125r2 126 127r2 131r1 134r2 135r3 139r2 140r1 142r1 144r2 146 147r1 152r2 155r1 157r1 158r3 159r2 164r1 165+166R1 167r2 170r1 171r2 173 174r1 176 179 184 186 The following papers were done with changes as noted. The changes were all pretty minimal changes, restricted to purely editorial items such as punctuation. Several of these "changes" are just explanations how I interpreted vague or conflicting instructions. I mostly avoided technical fixups, even when I considered them to be "obvious" solutions to simple oversights. paper 03-101r2 [388:13] Duplicates edit in 03-188r1. paper 03-104r2 [475:34] I assume you meant to keep the existing ", &" at the end of the line instead of literally replacing the whole line with this. It would be nonsense if I did this replacement literally. paper 03-105r3 [382:15-16] Also "provides"->"provide" [384:1-20+] The C_LOC in the editorial intruction here undoubtedly is a "typo" for C_F_POINTER. Slight overlap between the edits here and those in 03-107r2 section 1.14 (passed as part of 03-171r2). I merged the [383:2] edit from 03-107r2 1.14 into this paper rather than applying the edit and having this paper just override it. That edit delted a redundant "scalar" in item (3)(c) of the description of the argument to C_LOC (became item (2)(c) in the revised description of this paper). paper 03-113r3 [53:22+] I wasn't sure where to put this. Other previously passed papers deleted the constraint right before where this says to insert it and moved the subsequent constraint. I just put this right after the ones added at [53:18+]. [56:11+] Deleted "section". ISO just uses the section numbers without any label. In cases where something additional is needed for clarity, they want us to say "subclause" instead of section. We call them "sections" informally, but the ISO term is "subclause". [433:37+] "Abstract Types" -> "Abstract types" paper 03-119r1 [386:2] Paper 03-120r1 has different changes to this same material. The edits from 03-120r1 do achieve the same thing, in addition to other changes. I used the edits from 03-120r1. paper 03-120r1 [381:14] Corrected serial list punctuation. (We use a comma before the "and" in lists of 3 or more items). paper 03-122r1 Fixed data-component-part -> component-part Paper 03-166 changed this bnf term. paper 03-130r2 [226:3-] We use numbered first-level items, not lettered ones. I assume that the second [226:3-] insertion goes after the first one. Two consecutive paras used different quote styles for the same strings (single vs double). I changed them all to single quotes. (Most consistent with other surrounding text would be to use no quotes at all, but I didn't do that change.) paper 03-138r1 [53:2+] I assume both R442 refs are intended as R445 of 03-166, which is what R442 of 03-0007r3 turned into. R442 of 03-166 would make no sense at all here. [398:28] There is no 4.5.1.5 in 03-166. I assume you mean 4.5.4. paper 03-145r1 [432:37] 4.5.1.8 -> 4.5.1.1 There is no more a 4.5.1.8; this is where most of the material from it went. paper 03-153 Changed the period in the first "sentence" to a colon. The colon doesn't work particularly well either, as there is an explanatory para between this "sentence" and the example, but it is better than the period. We don't just put noun phrases in the document and treat them like sentences. paper 03-154r3 [40:13+] It wasn't clear to me whether this was intended as a separate para. I appended it to the preceeding para. [142:16] Paper 03-147r1, passed after 03-145r1, explicitly overrode this edit. paper 03-156r1 My suggestion to put the new sentence at the end of the para instead of the middle was accepted on the floor, but doesn't appear to have made its way into the R1. I did it per the floor amendments instead of per the R1. paper 03-162r2 [111:4] This edit duplicates UK E3. Fortunately, both edits are word-for-word identical, so I didn't have to decide how to resolve the conflict. paper 03-172r1 [180:5] This edit didn't say where on the line to add this. I assumed at the end (no other place seemed to make any sense at all). I also capitalized it. [392:26+] I guessed this was intended as a separate para, although that wasn't clear from the instructions. I omitted the period before the xref; an xref in parens is not a separate sentence as this appeared to be trying to make it. paper 03-177 [73:16-26] Changed the first "may be" to "is" and the second one to "are". Paper 03-107r1 seems schizophrenic in that it explicitly changes 2 cases similar to this one way (19:23-24) and then makes 2 changes the opposite way in rewriting this. The "may be" is also inconsistent with usage in the other type specifier subclauses of 5.1.1. [83:10] This edit conflicts with one of some other paper. That sentence isn't even there any more. Didn't do this. [83:12] This edit also conflicts with one of some other paper. In this case, the sentence is still there, but rewritten. Didn't do this. paper 03-178 [207:11-12] The word starting with "or" would be just "or". I'll assume that this really means the words (plural) starting with "or" as the 03-107r1 said (and continuing to the end of the sentence, which wasn't explicit in either case). I also took the liberty of retaining the "to" of the original text so that we still have a parallel construct of "to x, to y, or to z" instead of the strange "to x, to y, or z". (One could also factor the "to" out completely, but retaining it helps parsing here; incorrectly factoring it halfway out doesn't help anything). paper 03-180 [267:16-17] There are 3 occurances of "procedure" on these 2 lines, though it wasn't hard to guess the 2 intended. Also changed the articles as needed. paper 03-183 E19 - Corrected serial list punctuation (twice). E20 made a wording change in two paras of 14.7. Then E21 added a third similar para, but it used the original wording instead of the version in E20. I have trouble imagining that this is actually the intent, as the same point applies equally well to all three paras. I therefore took the liberty of also applying the E20 change to the new para added by E21. paper 03-188r1 [262:28,263:1] Previously passed paper 03-138R1 moved and revised these words in such a way that the merge was not necessarily obvious. Therefore, I didn't do this edit. It is possible that something still needs to be done here.