J3/97-221r1 Date: 14 August 1997 To: Coco Editor and WG5 From: J3 Subject: Review of WG5-N1301 (Draft Part 3: Conditional Compilation in Fortran) J3 finds no significant changes required in the draft, but does recommend the following changes: 1. Section 3.2.2, add to end of first sentence, "that is not a comment line". Reason: We believe the intent is that coco source form rules mimic the free source form rules in Part I, and without this addition, it is not clear that the following is permitted: ?? IF (DEVELOPING) & ?? ?? & THEN 2. Note 3.3, change "(Section 7)" to "(section 7)". Reason: Consistency 3. Section 3.2.3, 2nd paragraph, change to, "A coco directive shall not have more than the number of continuation lines permitted for free source form in Part I. Reason: There will be one fewer incompatibility when Fortran 2000 succeeds Fortran 95. 4. Section 4, 1st sentence, change to, "A named coco data object is a constant or is a variable." Reason: This section is not dealing with literal constants. 5. Sections 4-9: The same form should be used for constraints as is used in Part 1, i.e., lines after the first should be indented. 6. Rule CCR502, change "name" to "
" 7. Note 5.2, 1st sentence, change, "...by the general form in 5.2," to "...by the general form in section 5.2,". Reason: avoid confusion with Note 5.2 and Table 5.2 that appear in close proximity. 8. Section 9, 1st sentence following list item (4), change to, "The mechanism for...". 9. Section 9, 1st constraint following rule CCR902, change to, "A named constant declared in the shall be declared as a constant with the same type and value in an executed coco directive in the coco program." 10. Section 9, paragraph following Note 9.1, J3 recommends copying the lines of the coco SET file at the end of the coco output. 11. J3 notes that the program in Note 9.3 has no loop exit and suggests it be terminated gracefully - preferably with the use of an IOSTAT specifier.