J3/02-180 Date: 26 Apr 2002 To: J3 From: R. Maine Subject: Currently There are 65 occurances of the word "currently" in 02-007r1. Most of these are completely superfluous, redundant, unnecessary, and add no meaning. The verb "is" (which is used in conjunction with many of these occurances) is present tense and needs no extra help to imply "currently". One can add "currently" for special emphasis in some situations, but it is usually redundant. We are also very inconsistent about when we say "currently" and when we don't. This paper proposes to remove almost all of the cases of the word "currently". In most of the cases, it is literally just deleting the word. In other cases, this then suggests or necessitates other trivial editorial changes. Some of the uses of the word "current" also seem superfluous, but there are more cases of it, and a higher percentage of them seem to really need the word, so I ignored them. The initial motivation was from a clf reader complaining about how difficult it was to parse a sentence containing the phrase "not currently allocated" on page 62. I realized that the single word "unallocated" made this parse a lot better. Skimming other places quickly revealed how inconsistent our wording was on this. I initially was going to address just the use of "currently" modifying "allocated" or "associated", but ended up looking at every occurance of "currently" in the document. We already define pointer association status to be either associated, disassociated, or undefined (16.4.2.1), but this definition doesn't seem to prevent us from referring to it as "currently associated" some of the time. For allocation status, we define it to be either "currently allocated" or "unallocated" (6.3.1.1); the "currently" is even bold as a fundamental part of the term instead of just a modifier. We then procede to use phrases like "not currently allocated" instead of "unallocated", even in places where the 3-word form makes things hard to read and parse. (This paper was originally motivated by one of those cases.) I can detect no pattern as to when we use the "currently" and when we don't; sometimes we use both forms in the same sentence. EDITS c01 [7:23] "currently valid" - leave it as is c02 [18:28,29] "currently associated" -> "associated" (twice) c04 [62:4] "not currently allocated" -> "unallocated" [62:7] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" c05 [76:4] "allocatable" -> "allocated allocatable" delete "that is currently allocated" [76:5] "a polymorphic" -> "an associated polymorphic" delete "that is currently associated" c06 [112:15] (This one reads confusingly in context already, so..) "shall be currently allocated or be associated" -> "shall have an allocation status of allocated or a pointer association status of associated" Slight rewriting in the first para of 6.3.1.1 seems necessary. One could do this several ways. Here's one with a pretty minimal change. The main changes are to explicitly use the word "status" and to move the terms being defined to the beginning of the sentences. [112:23] "that" -> "has a status of <> if it" [112:24] Delete "is <>". [113:1] "thatis not currently allocated is <>" -> "has a status of <> if it is not allocated" [113:6,12,15,17] "not currently allocated" -> "unallocated" (4 times) [113:7] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" (twice) [114:6] "currently associated" -> "already associated" (could be deleted, but I think it better to have something for clarity and emphasis; I think "already" captures the idea more clearly than "currently"). [114:10,11-12] "currently associated" -> "associated" (twice) [115:18-19] (Similar to 112:15, but in the negative) "shall be not currently allocated or shall be disassociated" -> "shall have an allocation status of unallocated or a pointer association status of disassociated" [115:25] "allocatable" -> "unallocated allocatable" delete "that is not currently allocated" [116:0+] "currently allocated or has been deallocated" -> "allocated or unallocated". (The old phrasing was strange anyway. Why "has been deallocated"? A variable can be unallocated without ever having "been deallocated"; indeed, allocatable variables start life that way). [116:1] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" [116:12] "a currently allocated" -> "an allocated" [116:21+] In note 6.24. "not currently allocated" -> "unallocated" [116:25,27] "currently associated" -> "associated" (twice) [117:9,11] "currently in execution" -> "in execution" c07 [144:19,145:1] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" (twice) (Yes, the sentences read a bit oddly with "is" used in two different senses so closely together, but they read just as oddly with the "currently".) [145:8+] (Note 7.41) "not currently allocated" -> "unallocated" (twice) c09 [182:27] "a currently active" -> "an active" [184:31] "currently in effect" - leave as is. [185:1] "currently executed" - leave as is. (I'm not sure it makes sense as is anyway, but I'll not touch it for now. What does "currently executed" mean anyway? Perhaps this really meant "currently executing", in which case just "executing" would say the same thing.) [185:36] "currently connected" -> "connected" [195:31,32-33] "currently associated" -> "associated" (twice) [196:0+] (Note 9.33) "currently associated" -> "associated" [196:1] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" [215:3] "currently connected" -> "connected" [216:13-14] "currently in effect" - leave as is c10 [232:29] "currently in effect" - leave as is c12 [267:23] "not currently allocated" -> "unallocated" [267:27] "currently associated" -> "associated" [267:30] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" c13 [298:30, 299:2-3] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" (twice) [299:3] "not currently allocated" -> "unallocated" [300:17] "currently associated" -> "associated" [334:24-25] "currently allocated or not currently allocated" -> "allocated or unallocated" c16 [403:9,404:6] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" (twice) aa [415:11,11-12] "currently allocated" -> "allocated" (twice) [418:28] "not currently associated" -> "not associated" ac [442:34] "currently pointing" -> "pointing" [442:37] "currently is associated" -> "is associated" (This is the only place we seem to have used this word order. Looks like a localized attack of anti-split-infinitivism. Without the "currently", to split or not to split is not a question.) [443:36] "currently described" -> "described" [443:37] "currently associated" -> "associated" [451:15,17] "currently positioned" -> "positioned" [478:21] "currently have" -> "have"