ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1966

                   Response to Comments on N1947
                            Dan Nagle
                        2013 February 23

Generally, corrections of typos, spelling, and so on, were completed
as noted by the commenter.

Some comments were not done exactly as requested, or not completely done.
The reasons for this are noted below.

+++

Comment:
> Page 14, Fortran.10.1: This seems pointlessly redundant with
> Fortran.9 before it.  If it is necessary, then the same fixes for Page
> 13 need to be applied to the identical text on Page 14. (2 fixes).

This was not entirely done.
Reason:
As used by WG23, the term buffer includes the Fortran constructs
arrays (of any type) and characters scalars.  While it makes sense
to adjust the lower bound of array extents, it does not
with character lengths, hence the difference.

+++

Comment:
> Page 23, Fortran.24.2, bullet 1: Change "Favour" to "Favor". 
> (Generally, remove British spellings where they differ from
> US spellings. Search the pdf file for "our" to find them easily.)

> Pages 40,41,42: Change the spelling of Behaviour/behaviour to
> Behavior/behavior.

This was not done.
Reason:
Communication with the Editor of 24772 states that that document
uses "International Spelling" and that American spelling is not used.
I defer to the Editor.

+++

Comments:
> Page 40, Fortran.53.1, para 1: Change "MEM" to "Fortran.57".  Use
> clearer and easier to find cross-references.

> Page 40, Fortran.54.1, para 1: Change "[FAB]" to "Fortran.56". Use
> clearer and easier to find cross-references.

This was not done.
Reason:
WG23 has repeatedly stated that they reserve the right to change
the order of subclauses and to rename subclauses.  The three-letter
names are guaranteed to remain constant.  Thus, while apparently
a clarification, such Name or Number references are actually
at a high risk of obsolescence.  Consistency with the main Clause 6
is also at issue.

+++

Comment:
> Page 1, Fortran.1: The first sentence will become false with the next
> revision of the Fortran standard. It would be better if the beginning
> of the sentence were "For the purposes of this Annex, the
> InternationalÉ". 

This was not done.
Reason:
Several language standards are updating their latest revision.
The annexes in 24772 generally (naturally) lag some time
after the publication of the latest revision of the language standard,
but the annex published refers to the latest revision
when the annex was written.  Fortran should conform to this pattern.

+++

Comment
> Page 32, Fortran.38.2, bullet 1: Change "Code a status value..." to
> "Code a status variable". You do not code the "value". Later in the
> same sentence, change "examine the value" to "examine its value".

This was revisited and repaired.

+++

Comment:
> Page 11, Fortran.7.2, bullet 2: I don't understand what "Ensure that
> values from untrusted sources are checked..." means.  I assume
> "untrusted sources" would be library routines you do not trust, or
> data coming from files.  But in either case, to check the value, you
> would already have in a variable (actual argument or input list item),
> at which point it is too late to do any checking.  Bullet 3 is
> similarly confusing about how you would actually do a check.  I would
> propose deleting both bullet 2 and bullet 3.

Bullet 2 was reworded, but both bullets were retained. 
Reason:
These remedies are taken directly from 24772 Clause 6 FLC.
The explanation that, for example, a temporary variable of large range
could be used to check the value obtained is the simple solution.

+++

Comment:
> Page 42, Fortran.58.1, bullet 1: Unless you go to absurd lengths,
> detecting integer overflow is only practical if there is hardware
> support for this capability. Requiring this level of hardware design
> is generally outside the scope of the language standard.  Unless this
> is a proposal for an IEEE standard, I would prefer that it be removed
> from this section.

This was not done.
Reason:
This section asks that Fortran committees consider the idea.
Given the amount of discussion this engendered, it will be considered
no matter what WG23 says.  Indeed, it already has been.

+++

Comment:
> In Fortran.5.2 "IEEE 754" should specify which version of that
> standard is used, and there should be a cross-reference to IEC 60559,
> as in the main part of TR 24772.  Other references to "IEEE" (in 5.1
> and 5.38) should be more precisely worded since the main part of TR
> 24772 and other annexes mention several different IEEE standards.

This was not done.
Reason:
This annex includes references to documents mentioned within it,
as of the time of writing.  That is, 1539:2010 mentions 754:1985,
so the annex does as well.  Other documents mentioned in 1539:2010
(C, Character sets, date & time, and so on) are not mentioned
in the annex, so they are not mentioned (in Fortran.1).