To: J3                                                     J3/21-181
From: Rich Bleikamp & JOR
Subject: I/O fixes from the editor's report
Date: 2021-October-11

Reference: 21-171, 21-161

This paper attempts to resolve all of the editor's issues the arose
when 21-161 was applied to 21-007r1.  See the editor's report, 21-171.

A few items were noted by the editor that did not have a corresponding
edit in 21-161.  Fixes for those items is also included herein.

In the edits that follow, the editor's comments from 21-171, or a
synopsis thereof, appears immediately after a line that starts
with "-----"s.

The edits to 21-007r2 follow, prefaced by "EDITS".

A subsequent line of "-----"s terminates a editor's comment and the
corresponding edits to 21-007r2, and starts the next comment/edit pair.

The editor's comments includes line # references to 21-007r1, while
this papers proposed edits are for 21-007r2.

The editor's "EXTRA" and "DIFFERENT" edits for paper 21-161 all appear
appropriate.

--------
COMMENT [267:12] no change
        BUT Case (a) uses "effective item", why not here?

EDITS
[268:12] replace "input list item" with "effective item"

--------
COMMENT [290:6]
(which was: replace "additional items" with
                    "additional effective
 items")
    I suggest deleting "in the input list", as it sounds confusing,
    as technically not all effective items are literally in the input
    list.

EDITS
[291:6] delete the phrase " in the input list".

-------------
DISAGREE [294:5] no change
EXTRA [294:5] "corresponding list item" -> "corresponding effective
                                            item"
(it has to be this as it refers to the effective item right at the
start of the sentence, so what's it doing suddenly switching to list
item?)
COMMENT: Maybe this sentence would be improved by changing
             "the corresponding effective item"
         to
             "that effective item",
         to avoid giving the impression that there is more than one
         effective item in the discussion.

EDITS
[295:5] change "the corresponding effective item" to
               "that effective item"


---------
YES, BUT [296:5-6] no change needed
COMMENT: p1 says "same namelist group item"
         p2 says "each namelist group object list item"
         I think these are talking about the same things, and therefore
         should be using the same term. (If they are not talking about
         the same things, I am confused! Explain!!!)
         Adobe Reader claims "namelist group item" only appears here,
         so presumably that is the one that is wrong.

Should be using the bnf term, namelist-group-object-list, not namelist
group object list, AND should not use namelist group item.

The author chose to go with bnf terms for object list and the
items (objects) in the list (see section 8.9 for the bnf terms).
If the editor wishes, the same changes can be made in section 8.9 also.

EDITS
[297:2] replace "namelist group item" with "<namelist-group-object>"

[297:5] replace "namelist group object list" with
                "<namelist-group-object-list>"

[297:6] replace "namelist group object list item" with
                "<namelist-group-object>"

---------
DISAGREE [328:13] no change needed
    If a component in the middle of a list item of derived type is
    processed by defined i/o, that would say that completion of the
    defined i/o proc would terminate the whole list item. Yes, we can
    quibble that this means "the expanded list", but it does not say
    that.  I think that "input or output list item" -> "effective item"
    (hyperlinked) would be an improvement... but I did not change it
    at this time.
SUBGROUP PLEASE REVISIT THIS.

Should probably be effective item.   Its better than whats there now.

EDITS
[330:13] replace "input or output list item" with "effective item".

------
REALLY??? [548:11] no change needed
COMMENT If some part of an input list item is processed by defined
        input, the item is expanded into effective items just like
        formatted input (except only one level).
        So I think this should probably be changed too, but I wasn't
        confident enough to just do that.
SUBGROUP PLEASE REVIEW

Malcom is right,  if the list item is a derived type, it's the type of
the effective items that matter, not the derived type.

EDITS
[552:11] replace "the input list item" with
                 "the corresponding effective item".

-----
All the EXTRA edits and other changes made by the editor based
on 21-161 appear correct.
-----