Subject: hpff-doc: Comments on library.tex

From: Carol Munroe <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 96 14:39:28 EDT

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email-masked] is a mailing list for HPF 2.0 language specification
authors and editors.  Instructions for adding or deleting yourself from this
list appear at the bottom of this message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've found a few possible minor corrections or improvements to file
library.tex of Section 6 on Intrinsic and Library Procedures, plus one or
two for the included related files Grade/grade-[up,down].tex, which will
follow.
****
Section 6 intro, p. 90, lines 18-20 now has

       "The material of Sections 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.5.7, 13.8.1, 13.8.2, 
	13.9, and 13.10 REPLACE THESE HARD LINKS WITH SYMBOLIC LINKS!!!!!!!
	!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..."
I don't think it's practical to use symbolic links to the Fortran 95
document, since it's a separate document that we don't have, or am I
wrong? Anyway, the section numbers look OK to me as is, and I don't 
think we want this internal comment left in the public comment version.

****
Section 6.2, p. 90, lines 40-41 now has
	"...at the end of the numbered list in Section 7.1.6.2 of the
	Fortran standard, add:
		(11) A reference to one ..."

The list in my Fortran 95 draft already has 12 numbered items, so this 
added item should be #13:

		"(13) A reference to one ..."

****
Section 6.3 on Computational Intrinsic Functions, p. 91, line 30 now has

	"HPF adds one new intrinsic function, {\tt ILEN}, ..."

The context makes it clear that this is a computational one, but for
greater clarity, I'd suggest replacing it with

	"HPF adds one new computational intrinsic function, {\tt ILEN}, ..."

****
Section 6.4.4 Array Combining Scatter Functions, p. 92, lines 38-39 now has

	"Each of the twelve reduction operation in the language corresponds
	 to one of the scatter functions."

This is a really petty point, but there are only 11 reduction operations
in the language, plus the COPY combining operation. So maybe it should
read something like this:

	"Each of the eleven reduction operations in the language corresponds
	 to one of the scatter functions, while the {\tt COPY\_SCATTER} 
	 supports overwriting an existing value with any one of the values
	 in the corresponding subset."

[Alternatively, some reference could be made to offering a way to handle the
problem that might otherwise be expressed by a statement like A(V) = B in
Fortran except that the elements of V do not all have distinct values
(i.e., the problem of a "many-one array section" on the left side of an
array assignment).]

****
Section 6.4.4, p. 93, lines 28-30 currently has a few typos:

       "Note that the elements of the {\tt INDX} arrays must be nonegative,
	and that {\tt INDX(j)} may not exceed {\tt SIZE(BASE, j)}.
	The result computed is not affected by the the declared upper 
	or lower bounds on indices of {\tt BASE}; it depends 
	only on the shape of the the value of {\tt BASE}."

Cleaned up, this should read approximately

       "Note that the elements of the {\tt INDX} arrays must be non-negative,
	and that {\tt INDXj} may not exceed {\tt SIZE(BASE, j)}.
	The result computed is not affected by the declared upper 
	or lower bounds on indices of {\tt BASE}; it depends 
	only on the shape of {\tt BASE}."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To (un)subscribe to this list, send mail to [email-masked].
Leave the subject line blank, and in the body put the line
(un)subscribe <email-address>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------