07-288
To:          J3
From:        Van Snyder
Subject:     Comments on Clause 9
Date: 2007 October 10

1. Edits w.r.t. 07-007r3

[212:35-213:10]-----------------------------------------------------------
What if an error condition occurred before a REWIND or BACKSPACE
statement?  Either specify "occurred after what" or replace "occurred" by
"occurs" throughout 9.3.4.4.  Maybe use "occurs during data transfer" or
"occurs during execution of a data transfer statement" at [226:35], and
maybe insert "upon completion of execution of that statement" after
"indeterminate".  It isn't necessary to include all that detail throughout
the subclause since the first paragraph isn't about any particular kind of
connection.

[217:31-34]---------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Move to [221:36+].

[218:34-37]---------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Move to [221:36+].

[218:238-40]--------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Move to [220:32+].

[225:8-10, 17-18]---------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Combine C916 and C917, and part of C921:

C916 (R913) A <namelist-group-name> shall not appear if a REC= specifier,
     <format>, <input-item-list>, or <output-item-list> appears.

At [225:17-18] delete ", a <namelist-group-name" shall not appear,".

[225:22, 225:37-38]-------------------------------------------------------
Combine C923 and the paragraph at [225:37-38]:

C923 (R913) An EOR= specifier shall not appear in an output statement.  If
     an EOR= specifier appears, an ADVANCE= specifier shall also appear.

Then replace [225:37-38]:

"If an EOR= specifer appears, an ADVANCE= specifier with the value NO
shall also appear."

[225:23,225:35-36]--------------------------------------------------------
Combine C924 and the paragraph at [225:35-36]:

C924 (R913) A SIZE= specifier shall not appear in an output statement.  If
     a SIZE= specifier appears, and ADVANCE= specifier shall also appear.

Then replace [225:35-36]:

"If a SIZE= specifer appears, an ADVANCE= specifier with the value NO
shall also appear."

[226:18]------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Append "; list-directed formatting (10.10) is established".

[226:22]------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Append "; namelist formatting (10.11) is established".

[229:1, etc.]-------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Either replace "one of the values specified in 9.5.6.16" at
[229:1] by "UP, DOWN, ZERO, NEAREST, COMPATIBLE or PROCESSOR_DEFINED", or
replace list in 9.6.2.4-8, 9.6.2.10 and 9.6..14 to refer to 9.5.6.

[229:27]------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Delete C933 because a <variable> cannot be a procedure pointer.

See 07-283: Existing C933 is broken.

[235:32]------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Move to [235:6+].

[236:1]-------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor: Move to [235:33+].

[247:14-18]---------------------------------------------------------------
The paragraph doesn't make it clear that one has to execute a FLUSH
statement before a READ statement.  Editor: Replace the first sentence by
"Execution of a <<FLUSH statement>> causes data written to an external
unit in one segment by one image of a connect team to be available to a
READ statement for that unit on a different image of the connect team,
provided that image executes a FLUSH statement for that unit in a
subsequent segment, and before the READ statement."  Insert "subsequent"
before "READ" in the second sentence.

==========================================================================

2. Questions without answers or edits

I couldn't find any explicit specification whether unformatted I/O is
permitted on INPUT_UNIT, OUTPUT_UNIT or ERROR_UNIT.  Is there one?  Should
there be one?  Should we have "for unformatted input [output]" after
"preconnected" in 13.8.[6]9[17]?

[210:4-5]-----------------------------------------------------------------
With FLUSH an WAIT, especially WAIT for a complete output operation, is
this sentence still true?  With INQUIRE was it ever true?

[211:7-9]-----------------------------------------------------------------
Do the record markers have to occupy file storage units, or can they be
represented by a separate data structure?  Also see Note 9.9.

[211:17-18]---------------------------------------------------------------
The file specified in an INQUIRE statement is not required to be connected
for formatted stream access if the POS= specifier appears.  So why is
positioning using POS= not mentioned for unformatted stream access?

[215:5]-------------------------------------------------------------------
Should "on all images" be qualified by whether the unit was opened on the
several images on which it is open by TEAM open?  Also see UTI 142.

[216:11, 216:18, 244:32-33]-----------------------------------------------
What benefit accrues by allowing a WAIT operation for a unit that does not
exist or is not connected to a file?  If WAIT is OK, what's wrong with
BACKSPACE or REWIND?

[217:16-19, 217:23-24, 217:31-32]-----------------------------------------
Is the fact that a unit is already connected to the same file as the one
to which it is to be connected determined by comparing the name in the
FILE= specifier to the name of the currently-connected file?  What if the
file has several names (see [208:29])?  If "file to be connected to the
unit is the same as the file to which the unit is connected" is determined
by observing that there is no FILE= specifier, it's better to say that.

[217:17]------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does "connections" come from so suddenly?  Earlier in the sentence
we see "the connection" and "the unit," not "connections" or "units".
What does "same connect team" mean?  All of the connections in the connect
team have to have the same connection?  Isn't that a tautology?

[235:24+]-----------------------------------------------------------------
Should something be said about BITS here?

[239:27-28]---------------------------------------------------------------
In light of [243:9], how can the edit descriptor not be DT?

[240:24-25]---------------------------------------------------------------
Should this prohibition apply only to the external unit specified by the
unit dummy argument?  Did we really intend to prohibit changing changable
modes with OPEN statements?  It would be more useful if changable modes
could be changed, and were restored to their status quo ante when the DTIO
procedure completes.