To: J3 J3/12-148 Subject: Editorial stuff and questions without edits From: Van Snyder Date: 2012 May 09 1. Editorial stuff with edits ----------------------------- [4.3 51:1+] Introduce a subclause number 4.3.1, with a name such as "General", to satisfy ISO structural rules. [4.6p4 83:3] Replace "result" with "value" (expressions don't have results). [8.1.6.2 174:28] C607 says " shall be of type integer." The prefix and <-name> suffix in in R819 are assumed syntax rules. Concerning assumed syntax rules, 1.4.3p1 [22:14-15] says "... and convey appropriate constraint information...." Therefore C607 applies to R819. Therefore C812 is redundant with C607. Delete C812. [10.11.3.2p4 267:28-29] A discussion of namelist comments ought to be in subclause 10.11.3.6 Namelist comments. The essence of 10.11.3.2p4, except for the part about namelist comments not being allowed after the slash that terminates execution of the input statement, is already in that subclause. Since a slash terminates execution of the input statement, it seems the processor doesn't care what's after the slash, so why are comments prohibited? This might have had something to do with namelist stream input, but 10.11.3.6 prohibits comments in namelist stream input. Delete 10.11.3.2p4. [A.2 461:50+] Since namelist output is only required to be consistent with namelist input, and component names are optional in input, it is processor dependent whether component names appear in namelist output. [461:50] specifies that "the results of namelist output" are processor dependent. It is not obvious that this applies to more than the organization of output items into records, and the format used for numeric items. Since whether component names appear in namelist output is not mentioned in 10.11.4, it should be mentioned here. Add a list item "o whether structure component names appear in namelist output (10.11.4);" 2. Questions without edits -------------------------- There are several places where "for example" appears embedded in normative text: 1.4.4p3, 1.4.4p4, 3.3.2.2p1, 5.5p2, 9.2.1p1 9.3.3.3p2--200:4 9.3.3.4p3--200:20, 9.4p2--203:20, 10.7.2.3.7p2, 13.7.44p3--341:7, 13.7.70p5--352:18, 13.7.136p5--380:28--380:33, 14.3p5, 14.3p6, 14.3p7. Are any of these normative? Should at least some be in notes (or maybe deleted)? I have a dim, perhaps incorrect, recollection that in some standard we specified that nonnormative material appeared in boxes and with shaded background (or some such description), but I can't find it in 10-007r1. Do we still say it? Should we? Should the "Example" paragraphs of the descriptions of intrinsic procedures and procedures in intrinsic modules be specified to be nonnormative? [9.8.3p3 232:19-20] After a discussion of the effect of executing an ENDFILE statement for a stream access file, the last sentence of the paragraph says "Subsequent stream output statements may be used to write further data to the file." Does this mean before the terminal position of the file? Does it change the terminal position of the file if data are written after the previously-established terminal position? Can we handle this without an interp?