To: J3                                                     J3/22-139
From: Rich Bleikamp
Subject: edits / comments for the CD document
Date: 2022-March-02

Reference: 22-007, CD 1539-1

Comments and edits for 22-007 / CD 1539-1

--- edits to the FOREWORD and INTRODUCTION ---
[xii:2] Foreword, 2nd paragraph,
(check to see if ISO boilerplate has changed, I'm hoping
"types of document" is changed to "types of documents").

[xiii:2] Introduction, "Fortran 202x contains ...", the bulleted item
that starts with
 "Intrinsic Modules:
  Additional Named Constants ...",

    replace
      "from the intrinsic module IEEE_ARITHMETIC,"
    with
      ", from the intrinsic module IEEE_ARITHMETIC,"

    Occurs twice in that bulleted item.

[xiv:2] Introduction, 2nd paragraph, the 8th bulleted item, that
starts with "Changes to the intrinsic module IEEE_ARITHMETIC",
note: line 2 started on the previous page,

  Change "perform the the" to "perform the"

--- end of edits to the FOREWORD and INTRODUCTION ---

--- edits for clause 2, Normative references ---

[2, Normative references, ISO/IEC 9899:2011, [2:7]]
    Was the choice of the 2011 standard for the C programming language
    intentional, or should we reference ISO/IEC 9899:2018?
    (Malcolm noted that if we want to update the C standard version,
    we need to check all references to 9899 to see if subclause #'s we
    reference have changed.  Does someone have the relevant C
    standards to check?)

[2, Normative references, [2:9]]
    change
        "ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2011"
    to
        "ISO/IEC/IEEE 60559:2020"

--- end of edits for clause 2, Normative references ---

--- edits for clause 3
I'm bothered by the definition of "actual argument" (3.1)
    "entity (...) that appears in a procedure reference"
because I think of <actual-arg> and "actual argument" as being
equivalent and hence <conditional-arg> and "actual argument" as
being equivalent when the <actual-arg> is a conditional expr.  But
they are not (see[xiv: bullet item "Program units and procedures:"]).

  The text in 15.5.2.3 (Conditional argument correspondence)
  says "... its subsequent correpondent is chosen; ...".  I'd
  be happy if we said "chosen as the actual argument" instead of
  "chosen".

EDITS:
[320:9] 15.5.2.3 Conditional argument correspondence, 1st paragraph]
  replace the first "chosen" with "chosen as the actual argument".

same for 2nd "chosen" at the editor's discretion
--- end of edits for clause 3

--- clause 15 ---
[318:23] 15.5.1, constraint 1544: What does constraint C1544 mean?
  C1544 A consequent-arg that is an expr shall not be a variable.
If this is clear to others, ignore this. Otherwise, a brief explanation
would be helpful.
---
END OF EDITS