J3/14-268 To: J3 From: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Editorial fixes and changes Date: 2014 October 15 1. Introduction This paper contains miscellaneous editorial fixes for 14-007r2. 2. jlongtable problems There seems to be a problem with jlongtable, or with the way that I am using it (probably the latter). This has resulted in bad typesetting of Table 1.3 (page 24-25) and 10.1 (page 255-256). This will go away if even slight changes to page breaking occur, but should be investigated for a proper fix. If nothing else works a hard page break before the table will. 3. Wording inconsistency The standard uses the phrase "is assigned" approximately 105 times, and the phrase "the processor shall assign" approximately 3 times. One form should be changed to the other. I wonder which would be best. 4. Edits to 14-007r2. [37:4] 2.4.3.2 Data object, p2, Fix bad hyperlinking of "Subobjects". {Only letter "S" is hyperlinked.} [136:31-32] 6.7.5 ERRMSG= specifier, p2, "the processor shall assign, as if by intrinsic assignment, an explanatory message to " ->"the is assigned an explanatory message, as if by intrinsic assignment". [168:19] 7.2.4.1 Form of the FORALL Construct, p2, After "" insert "in a FORALL construct or statement". {DO CONCURRENT has its own forward reference; it is better that this reference sound like it is specific to FORALL so that people don't get confused wondering why it is here.} [171:15+1-2] Delete NOTE 8.1. {The first sentence is uninteresting. The second is a lie.} [173:1] 8.1.3.3 "Attributes of" -> "Other attributes of". {Correct misleading subclause title; this is not all the attributes, the type and polymorphism being described elsewhere.} [197:24-25] 8.5.7 STAT= and ERRMSG= specifiers in image control statements, p5, change "the processor shall assign, as if by intrinsic assignment, an explanatory message to the specified variable" ->"the specified variable is assigned, as if by intrinsic assignment, an explanatory message". {Actually I don't see why the processor is not going to assign an uninformative message like "unexpected error", what makes us think it is going to assign an explanatory one?} [219:7] 9.6.3 Data transfer input/output list, Delete C932 "(R920) The ... integer." {Entirely redundant as imposes these requirements.} [244:16] 9.11.6 IOMSG= specifier, p1, "processor shall assign an explanatory message to as if by intrinsic assignment" ->" is assigned an explanatory message, as if by intrinsic assignment". [296:3+lots] 12.5.1 Syntax of a procedure reference, NOTE 12.21, "Let us assume" -> "Assume". {Should not use first-person-pronoun rhetoric in a standard.} [299:22+3] 12.5.2.4 Ordinary dummy variables, NOTE 12.25, "subcomponents" -> "subobjects". {This includes subcomponents of subcomponents without having to think about whether they would be included. Which surely they would.} [318:30,35+2] Fix reference in NOTE 12.50 to be the correct item i.e. (5) not (4), and at the same time remove the extraneous numbered blank line between items (4) and (5). ALTERNATIVE: Delete NOTE 12.50 (and remove that blank line). [443:26] 15.2.2 Named constants and derived types in the module, p2, change "true" -> "1" and "false" -> "0". {It's either this or explicitly say that "true" and "false" are the ones from , and since those are required to be 1 and 0 it's easier just to say that.} [459:somewhere] Delete Table 15.2 entries that read "[-10pt]". [481:20,21] 16.5.2.3 Events that cause pointers to become associated, item (3), "subcomponent" -> "subobject", twice. {This should apply to pointer components of allocatable subcomponents too.} [482:6,7] 16.5.2.4 Events that cause pointers to become disassociated, item (4), "subcomponent" -> "subobject", twice. {This should apply to pointer components of allocatable subcomponents too.} ===END===