From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Jan 12 23:24:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo1 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo1@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 23EAF14CB9; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:24:50 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from dkuug.dk (ptah.dkuug.dk [195.215.30.66]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6D214975 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:24:47 +0100 (CET) Received: from over.ny.us.ibm.com (over.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.150]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.10/8.9.2) with ESMTP id j0CMLqwE073888 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:21:55 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rbjames@ca.ibm.com) Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([192.168.1.101]) by pokfb.esmtp.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0CLedjK001400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:40:39 -0500 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0CLeURK011833 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:40:30 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (d01av01.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.215]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j0CLeUHZ258376 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:40:30 -0500 Received: from d01av01.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0CLeTnL031238 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:40:30 -0500 Received: from d25ml03.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml03.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.6.104]) by d01av01.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0CLeT9H031205 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:40:29 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20041130151151.021653755B@ghz.klid.dk> Subject: Re: WG5 letter ballot on interpretations To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.2CF1 June 9, 2003 Message-ID: From: Rob James Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:37:52 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF1|June 9, 2003) at 01/12/2005 16:40:29 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Yes No Number Title -Y- --- 000004 Value returned by MAXVAL/MINVAL -C- --- 000006 Character length specification of a function result -C- --- 000008 Optional arguments to MAX/MIN --- -N- 000017 Characteristics of an array function result -C- --- 000023 Termination of the previous record by a WRITE statement --- -N- 000030 Ordering requirements on definition of specification functions --- -N- 000031 Association of pointer function result with INTENT(OUT) dummy argument (subsumed by 000074) -C- --- 000068 Asterisks as I/O units --- -N- 000074 TARGET dummy arguments and POINTER expressions -C- --- 000078 Resolving generic procedure references --- -N- 000096 End-of-record and PAD -Y- --- 000098 Are dummy functions returning assumed-length character legal? (duplicate of 000006) -C- --- 000102 mask-expr evaluated only once --- -N- 000103 Derived type name DOUBLEPRECISION -Y- --- 000104 Representation method of result of REAL -Y- --- F90/000049 Characteristics of function results --- -N- F90/000070 Characteristics specified by interface bodies -Y- --- F90/000096 Definition of "Declaration" -Y- --- F90/000140 TARGET attribute for a derived-type object with a pointer component --- -N- F90/000180 Unambiguous generic references -Y- --- F90/000206 Collating sequence inconsistencies -C- --- F90/000207 Integer bit-model inconsistency -Y- --- F90/000208 nonadvancing output followed by list directed output -Y- --- F90/000210 nonadvancing write followed by list directed write --- -N- JP-24 The bnf term shared-term-do-construct -Y- --- F03/0001 Generic type-bound procedures -Y- --- F03/0002 Component value for pointer components --- -N- F03/0003 Referencing deferred bindings {subsumed by F03/0004} --- -N- F03/0004 Type-bound procedures and undefined association status -Y- --- F03/0005 Argument association and the TARGET attribute -Y- --- F03/0006 Intrinsic assignment and allocatable components -Y- --- F03/0007 Finalization of structure constructors in specifications -Y- --- F03/0009 VALUE attribute for passed-object dummy arguments -Y- --- F03/0010 Unlimited polymorphic pointer/allocatable dummy arguments -Y- --- F03/0011 Allocating objects of abstract types -Y- --- F03/0013 VALUE attribute for polymorphic dummy arguments -Y- --- F03/0014 Automatic arrays in interface bodies -Y- --- F03/0015 TARGET attribute for associate names -Y- --- F03/0016 Invoking type-bound procedures via array objects YES comment on 000006: For Fortran 2003, the answer should refer to page 41, not 51. YES comment on 000008: The question refers to Section 13.3 [217:27+] of Fortran 95. It should be made clear that this refers to Fortran 95, and not Fortran 2003. NO comment on 000017: We should be quoting Fortran 2003 for this answer. The correct quote is from 12.2.2 [257:4-6]: If a type parameter of a function result or a bound of a function result array is not an initialization expression, the exact dependence on the entities in the expression is a characteristic. YES comment on 000023: We should make it clear that the question is referring to 9.2.1.3.2 from Fortran 95. This section number does not exist in Fortran 2003. The corresponding section from Fortran 2003 is 9.2.3.2. Also, the answer to the first question should refer to section 9.2.3.2 [176:8-9] of Fortran 2003, and the answer to the second question should refer to 10.7.1 instead of 10.6.1. NO comment on 000030: The edits are incorrect for Fortran 2003. In Fortran 2003, the initialization expression edit should go before note 7.11, and the specification expression edit should go before note 7.10. NO comment on 000031: Since I'm voting NO on 000074, it wouldn't seem right for me to approve of an answer that says "See the answer to interpretation #74". YES comment on 000068: The answer should refer to Fortran 2003 instead of Fortran 95. NO comment on 000074: The answers quote Fortran 95 instead of Fortran 2003. The second sentence quoted in answer 1 does not exist in Fortran 2003, and the first sentence is in 5.1.2.7. Answer 2 should reference 12.4.1.2 instead of 12.4.1.1, and answer 3 should quote slightly different text from 12.4.1.2 (not 12.4.1.1) at [270:5-9] (not [200:38-42]). YES comment on 000078: In Fortran 2003, this edit should be applied at [278:5+]. NO comment on 000096: The answer extensively cites page and line numbers from Fortran 95, and edits are given for both Fortran 95 and Fortran 2003. The answer should cite page and line numbers from Fortran 2003, and edits should only be given for Fortran 2003. YES comment on 000102: The edits for Fortran 2003 are at [147:1] and [147:7]. NO comment on 000103: No edits should be given, as none are necessary for the current revision of the standard. NO comment on F90/000070: A "possible Fortran 2003 edit" should not be given in a ballot for Fortran 2003 interpretations. The "possible Fortran 2003 edit" should either be made definite, or removed entirely. NO comment on F90/000180: The explanation given in the answer does not apply to Fortran 2003. YES comment on F90/000207: The edit should be done at [293:5-6] of Fortran 2003. NO comment on JP-24: No edit is necessary for Fortran 2003. NO comment on F03/0003: This cannot be diagnosed by the compiler in general, so it should not be a constraint. This constraint would require a run-time check. NO comment on F03/0004: This cannot be diagnosed by the compiler in general, so it should not be a constraint. This constraint would require a run-time check. Rob James XL Fortran Compiler Developer IBM Toronto Lab Phone: 905-413-6043 E-mail: rbjames@ca.ibm.com