From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Mon Mar 31 21:37:19 2008
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom6
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom6@open-std.org
Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 6946FD7482; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:37:19 +0200 (CET DST)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
X-Greylist: delayed 347 seconds by postgrey-1.18 at pingo.cv.ihk.dk; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:37:17 UTC
Received: from mail1.cray.com (mail1.cray.com [136.162.0.111])
	by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3DF38508
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:37:17 +0200 (CET DST)
Received: from beaver.us.cray.com (relaya.us.cray.com [192.168.252.144])
	by mail1.cray.com (8.13.6/8.13.3/gw-5323) with ESMTP id m2VJVIVi023391
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:31:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from CFEXFE01.us.cray.com (cfexfe01.us.cray.com [172.30.74.93])
	by beaver.us.cray.com (8.13.8/8.13.3/hub-5273) with ESMTP id m2VJYw7v011565;
	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:35:00 -0500
Received: from mh-dhcp-172-31-20-113.us.cray.com ([172.31.20.113]) by CFEXFE01.us.cray.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959);
	 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:31:15 -0500
Message-ID: <47F13D8D.50603@cray.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:37:49 -0500
From: Bill Long <longb@cray.com>
Reply-To: longb@cray.com
Organization: Cray Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: j.k.reid@rl.ac.uk, sc22wg5@open-std.org
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3546) Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations
References: <20080306115023.2DE9CDDAFB@open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080306115023.2DE9CDDAFB@open-std.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2008 19:31:15.0443 (UTC) FILETIME=[C911DC30:01C89365]
X-Cray-VirusStatus: clean
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk



John Reid wrote:


The following Fortran 2003 interpretations are being balloted:

Yes   No   Number     Title
---   -N-  F03/0003 Referencing deferred bindings  
---   -N-  F03/0004 Type-bound procedures and undefined association status
-Y-   ---  F03/0079 Value of decimal exponent for a real zero value
-Y-   ---  F03/0080 Formatted output of a negative real zero value
-Y-   ---  F03/0100 Error in field width for special cases of signed 
                    INFINITY output
-Y-   ---  F03/0104 Deallocation and finalization of bounds-remapped
                    pointers
-Y-   ---  F03/0106 Inquire by unit inconsistencies
-Y-   ---  F03/0107 Are the IEEE_* elemental routines required
-Y-   ---  F03/0108 Is IEEE_SUPPORT_NAN consistent with the other
                    IEEE_SUPPORT functions



Reasons for No vote on F03/0003:

In the paragraph above the ANSWER:, there is a reference to 
"x%nondeferred_proc".  There is no such entity in the program example.  
I suspect this should be "x%deferred_proc".

The edit covers 3 of the 4 possible cases. It seems like the 4th should 
be covered as well.  We should disallow an undefined pointer, a 
disassociated pointer, an unallocated allocatable variable (all 
covered), as well as a pointer with an undefined association status.  
It's not clear why the last one was left off.


Reasons for No vote on F03/0004:

In the DISCUSSION:  The first sentence is of the form "Access to 
<undefined concept> (a.k.a. <well defined concept>) always ...".  I have 
multiple problems with this sentence.

1) It is confusing to introduce a new, undefined term, "object-bound 
procedures" when we have a clear, defined term already "procedure 
pointer component".

2) Slang like "a.k.a" might be avoided, as a consideration to readers 
whose native language is not English.

3) The sentence runs afoul of f08 where procedure pointer components can 
have default initialization to a non-NULL target.  In that case, the 
question in the interp applies to procedure pointer components  with the 
NOPASS attribute as well as type-bound procedures.  To head off another 
interp in the future, I'd prefer to just delete the whole DISCUSSION: 
section.

Finally, the edit is the same as in F03/0003, and thus I have the same 
issue as above.

Cheers,
Bill










-- 
Bill Long                                   longb@cray.com
Fortran Technical Support    &              voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development         fax:   651-605-9142
Cray Inc., 1340 Mendota Heights Rd., Mendota Heights, MN, 55120

            

