On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Hence: How about the following?
I noticed some minor issues (below). Generally this looks fine, though I better defer to someone more versed in Fortran. ;-) > Additionally, one should check that the code indeed only accesses Here I'd say "Additionally check that..." (which is simpler, and the "one should", or "man sollte" in German, is usually recommended against in documentation.) > Other mismatches are more rarely but usually indicate "more rare" (not an adverb here) > one should check that the code indeed only accesses this single element > and, thus, does handles it correctly. "does handle" or simply "handles" > If short-term fixing of those issues is not feasible, the compiler flag > <code>-fallow-argument-mismatch</code> (implied by > <code>-std=legacy</code>) can be used to downgrade the error to a > warning. Here we could say "downgrades the error" instead of the longer "can be used to downgrade the error"; and in general active voice is preferrable. > An invalid but comparably common use is to pass scalar as argument, > which is invalid: "to pass a scalar"? And maybe avoid one of the uses of invalid, dropping the "which is invalid" part? Thank you, Gerald
