J3/03-265

Date: 29 Oct 2003
To: J3
From: Richard Maine
Subject: Proposed minor fixes to the FCD

I propose the following fixes to the FCD as part of the US position.

1. Typos (pointed out to me by other people)

   [380:26] Delete spurious quote at the end of the line.

2. Note 12.21 has its explanations reversed.  There isn't much point
   in having a note to explain the reason for a requirement if the
   explanation is wrong; that causes more confusion than it fixes.
   The conclusion is correct, but the explanation is backwards.  The
   explanation was the sole reason for the note.

    [268:24+3]-[269:0+1] "and have...that type." ->
      "and the declared type of the dummy argument needs to be
       the same as, or an extension of, the declared type of
       the actual argument."
    [269:0+2] "the dummy argument" -> "the actual argument"
    [269:0+3] "the actual argument" -> "the dummy argument"

3. Fix some inconsistently done hyphens/dashes/minuses.

   As noted by David Muxworthy, the draft isn't entirely consistent
   on the usage of hyphens, en-dashes, and minus signs.  For the
   most part, the distinctions are almost invisible on paper except
   to the most practiced eye.  The distinction does affect things
   like electronic searches with some tools.  I propose the following
   edits for this matter.

   Change en-dash (LaTeX --) to minus (LaTeX $-$).

     [71:6+7], [213:21], [293:13,16], [502:9,10]

   I do not propose changing the other cases pointed out by David
   and others.  Most of the other cases are at least arguably
   expressions written in Fortran rather than in math.  LaTex
   math mode is not appropriate there.  Admitedly, the en-dash
   isn't quite right either, but it is arguably a better choice
   than a hyphen.  Probably the most defensible position is that
   all Fortran expressions, even inline in text, should be in
   verbatim mode (which uses a different font and spacing).  But
   that would be a huge editorial change, which would take lots
   of effort and would certainly need several iterations to get
   right.  Given that the "right" change isn't going to happen,
   I don't see much point in changing from one questionable
   form to another that is just as questionable in my mind.