J3/15-154 To: J3 From: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Response to 15-104 Date: 2015 February 26 1. Introduction This is the response to the editor's report 15-104. 2. Responses 14-247r3: > [64:26 4.5.2.2p2] ACTION: Further wordsmithing required. [64:29] 4.5.2.2 Accessibility, p1, insert after the first sentence: "An on the specifies the accessibility of the type name." [65:1] Same subclause, p2, "type definition is private," ->"derived type is defined in the scoping unit of a module, and its name is private in that module,", "the module containing the definition, and within" ->"that module and", Making the whole sentence read "If a derived type is defined in the scoping unit of a module, and its name is private in that module, then the type name and thus the structure constructor (4.5.10) for the type, are accessible only within that module and its descendants." {Wordsmith!} >[387:8+] ACTION: Index "unordered segments". [various] Index "unordered segments" at 190:25 190:28-29 Note 8.30 Note 8.31 321:14-15 329:4 329:7 387:6 496:35 497:13 making the one at 190:25 bold. >EXTRA EDIT: say something about "getenv" in the pd list. [357:15] 13.7.68 GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE, p3 Arguments, NAME, End the last sentence with a full stop. [497:10+] Annex A, after the bullet ending "trailing blanks (13.7.67);", insert new bullet "- the interpretation of case for the NAME argument of the intrinsic subroutine GET_ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLE (\ref);". 14-270r1: > [270:24] EXTRA EDIT: deleted the sentence > "Each input value following the equals shall then be acceptable to > format specifications for the type of the list item in the > corresponding position in the expanded sequence, except as noted in > this subclause.", as this seems to be covered by the new wording > about raising an error condition. >ACTION: Check wording and confirm that this is the case. Seems to be ok? 14-271r1: > [error termination] > I note that several places, especially in the coarray stuff, refer to > "termination of execution" or just "initiated termination", when only > normal termination is intended, not error termination. These ought to > be improved. Also, "normal termination" ought to be hyperlinked and > indexed similarly. >ACTION: Do something about this. [79:15-16] Index both "error termination" and "normal termination". [136:15] "initiated termination" -> "initiated normal termination" and index nt. [197:5] "initiated termination" -> "initiated normal termination" and index nt. [200:10] Index nt. [212:20] Index nt. [213:1] "termination of execution of a program" -> "normal termination", Index nt. [409:24] "termination of execution" -> "normal termination", Index nt. [throughout] Hyperlink "normal termination" and the remaining "termination of execution" to \ref{D2:Termination of execution}. > [539:5-10] "A procedure" -> "Any procedure", as the whole paragraph is > talking about defining external procedures. >COMMENT: In retrospect this additional final sentence is probably not > needed at all. [538:33-34] Delete "Any procedure defined by ... external procedure.". {Contributes nothing, anyway module procedures in intrinsic modules are frequently defined by means other than Fortran!} >ACTION: The edit descriptors are indexed under e.g. "edit descriptor!A", > but perhaps they should also be indexed under "A edit descriptor"? > Unindexed "format descriptor!G". [throughout] Yes index that way too. >ACTION: Should the "position editing" descriptors be called "position edit > descriptors"? [throughout] Yes. ===END===