[Cfp-interest 3014] Re: C23 editorial review draft

Fri Mar 1 17:06:33 PST 2024

From reviewing the titling, numbering and referencing of tables in the C23 editorial review draft, I have the following additional comments.

++++++++++++++

5.2.5.3.4 #11, a note, just above Table 5.2. A footnote in the previous draft was turned into this note. The footnote was attached to the last sentence of the paragraph preceding the note. As a note, it’s not clear what “these cases” refers to. Suggest reverting back to the footnote. An alternative fix would be changing the note to: "Although unspecified in ISO/IEC 60559, a preferred quantum exponent of 0 would be a reasonable implementation choice for the cases where the formula is undefined and the function result is finite.”

Table 7.1 and elsewhere. Table headers are not in Bold. Headers in tables in ISO Directives, Part 2, Clause 29 (Tables) are in Bold. I don’t see this stated as a requirement.

(Breaks in Tables H.1 and H.2 noted in previous comments.)

Table H.4 was moved to the wrong place. It should be with the example in H.11 #7.

Table H.4 uses a header style similar to the one that ISO calls incorrect in Example 4 in  https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/part2/index.xhtml#_idTextAnchor424.

Table numbering skips from H.4 to H.9.

The remaining comments pertain to DIS comment:

**-184

Table titles and numbers

Several tables (typically referred to as “the following table”) don’t have titles or numbers: 
6.4.1 #3
6.4.4.5 #3
6.5.16 #10
7.11.2.1, Examples 1 and 2 
7.17.6 #1 
7.27 Example
Annex E, several
F.3 #20. The title could be “Operation binding — mathematical operations”.
G.5.2 #2, #3.

There are some tables that are not referred to as a table, and that do not have a title or number, e.g.
6.4.4.5 #9
7.27 #12
G.5.3 #2 (like G.5.2 #2, #3 mentioned above)

Table references

7.27 #13 says “indicated in the table in 7.6.2”. Should be “indicated in Table 7.1”. Actually it should be “indicated in Tables 7.1 and 7.2, though that would be a technical change.
In F.10 #10, #11, and #13, Table F.2 is referred to as "the 'Operation binding' table in F.3”, contrary to ISO style which would be just “Table F.2”.
In F.10 #16 the unnumbered table in F.3 #20 is referred to as "the F.3 table of operations recommended by ISO/IEC 60559”. The table should be given a number (noted above) and be referred to by that number.
G.5.2 footnote 449 refers to “the tables”. (Clear enough but doesn’t fit ISO guidelines.)
H.2.2 footnote 452 refers to “the tables”. Should be “Table H.1 and Table H.2”.
H.10 #4 refers to “In 7.6.2, the table of functions affected by constant rounding modes for standard floating types”. Should be "Table 7.1".
H.10 #5 refers to "In 7.6.3, in the table of functions affected by constant rounding modes for decimal floating types”. Should be "Table 7.2".
H.13 Example refers to “the following tables H.9 and H.10” and “the following table H.10”. Should be “Tables H.9 and H.10” and “Table H.10” (no “the following”).
M.1 #1 refers to “this table”. Should be “Table M.1”.
M.1 #2 “in a table” should be “in the table”.

- Jim Thomas

++++++++++++++

> On Feb 26, 2024, at 7:53 AM, Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> Below are my responses so far.
> 
> - Jim Thomas
> 
>> On Feb 23, 2024, at 6:29 PM, Jim Thomas <jaswthomas at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>> CFP team,
> …
> 
>> I think the CFP related comments in n3216 are:
>> 
>> ** -002
> Ok
> 
>> **- 016 
> Ok
> 
>> **- 024
> Ok, except …
> Appropriate changes of “negating” to “arithmetically negating” were not made:
> 6.4.4.3 #12 (3 instances)
> 7.3.9.4 #2 Change “negating the sign of its imaginary part” to “arithmetically negating its imaginary part”.
> Footnote 340
> Footnote 405
> F.5 #5
> J.1 #1 (44)
> 
>> **- 033
> Ok
> 
>> AT035
> Ok (in PDF n3219)
> 
>> **- 038
> Still a hanging paragraph in F.10 (not mentioned in comment). Fixing it would change Annex F subclause numbers for all the math functions. Suggest no change for C23.
> Still a hanging paragraph in H.11 (not mentioned in comment).
> Otherwise ok for Annexes F, G and H (others not checked).
> 
>> ** -046
> Ok
> 
>> GB1 2- 048
> Ok
> 
>> GB1 1- 049
> Ok
> 
>> GB1 0- 050
> Ok
> 
>> ** -068
> Ok
> 
>> ** -069
> The first change also replaced a semicolon with a period (preceding “Implementations conforming to Annex F have this behavior”). The semicolon made it clearer what “this behavior” refers too. Suggest restoring the semicolon.
> Otherwise ok.
> 
>> GB3 3- 078
> Ok
> 
>> ** -085
> Ok
> H.11.3.2.3, last line, is “See EXAMPLE in H.11.3.3.2.” I believe ISO style would be “See Example in …” or “See the example in …”. 
> 
>> GB5 3- 104
> Ok
> 
>> GB5 4- 105
> Ok
> There’s a bad line break right after the top line of the 7.6.3 Synopsis box.
> There’s a space at the beginning of the 4th line of 7.6.3 #2. 
>  
> In the end of 7.23.6.2, in Forward references, the 2nd line begins with a comma “,”.
> 
>> GB6 8- 121
> Ok
> 
>> ** -128
> Ok
> 
>> GB7 2- 134
> Ok
> 
>> GB7 9- 142
> OK
> 
>> GB7 6- 143
> Ok
> The breaks in the tables are awkward. I assume the entire tables won’t fit the page width. Adding a title for the second part of each table would be helpful, e.g. “Table H.1 (continued)”, which is what ISO suggests for tables that must be continued on another page. There’s a lot of space between the two parts of the tables.
> 
>> GB7 7- 144
> Ok
> 
>> GB1 08- 146
>> GB1 07- 147
>> GB1 06- 148
>> GB1 05- 149
>> GB1 04- 150
>> GB1 03- 151
>> GB1 02- 152
>> GB1 01- 153
>> GB1 00- 154
>> GB9 9- 155
>> GB8 5- 164
>> GB8 9- 165
>> GB8 8- 166
>> GB8 7- 167
> 
> Didn’t check 146 - 167 above, which refer to the Annexes and Annex J.
> 
>> GB9 2- 175
> Ok
> 
>> GB9 1- 176
> Ok regarding comment resolution, but ...
> Don’t “TS 18661-n” need to be written as “ISO/IEC TS 18661-n”?
> CFP and WG14 work referred to TS 18661-4a, but the “4a” doesn’t appear on any published document. The “a” doesn’t seem necessary because the bullet says “mathematical functions” which points to the feature that was integrated. Suggest omitting the “a”. Also, TS 18661-4 2nd edition is expected to publish at about the same time as C23, which means an undated reference to TS 18661-4 would be wrong (the new one doesn’t include the mathematical functions). Suggest using dated references to the TSes:
> ISO/IEC TS 18661-1:2014
> ISO/IEC TS 18661-2:2015
> ISO/IEC TS 18661-3:2015
> ISO/IEC TS 18661-4:2015
> 
>> **- 189
> Ok
> 
>> 
>> - Jim Thomas
>> 
>>> On Feb 22, 2024, at 2:48 PM, Rajan Bhakta <rbhakta at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>>  
>>> The draft post DIS comment resolution is linked to here: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3219.pdf(Password: sc22wg14)
>>> The final comment resolution document is here: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3216.pdf
>>> As a reminder, CFP has agreed to review the sections where any floating-point changes have happened.
>>> I have asked for a diff based document as well, and if I get it, I will send it along as well.
>>>  
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Rajan Bhakta
>>> z/OS XL C/C++ Compiler Technical Architect
>>> ISO C Standards Representative (Canada, USA), INCITS/C Chair
>>> C/C++ Compiler Development
>>> rbhakta at us.ibm.com <mailto:rbhakta at us.ibm.com>
>>>  
>>> IBM
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cfp-interest mailing list
>>> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net <mailto:Cfp-interest at oakapple.net>
>>> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.oakapple.net/pipermail/cfp-interest/attachments/20240301/2a1ed74d/attachment-0001.htm>