From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Wed Apr 9 00:24:28 2008 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom6 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom6@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id CF11AD8D6C; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:24:28 +0200 (CET DST) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.98.43]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65CF38511 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 00:24:06 +0200 (CET DST) Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com ([129.145.155.118]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m38MNwdo004955 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:23:59 GMT Received: from ranma.sfbay.sun.com (ranma.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.84.89]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m38MNwJk051689 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from michaeli@localhost) by ranma.sfbay.sun.com (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id m38MNwq01642 for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:23:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Ingrassia Message-Id: <200804082223.m38MNwq01642@ranma.sfbay.sun.com> To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Subject: Re: Letter ballot 5 on F2003 interpretations-N1722 X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Sorry this is late. Yes No Number Title -C- --- F03/0003 Referencing deferred bindings -Y- --- 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 Comment on YES vote on F03/0003: The paragraph immediately above ANSWER is more confusing than helpful, and in any case is merely a comment by the Interp submitter. I believe it should be entirely deleted since it is not properly part of the question nor of the answer. My reading of the paragraph is that it really means something like: Because x is disassociated, its dynamic type is the same as its declared type, thus the interpretation of x%deferred_proc would have been reasonably clear if deferred_proc had been a nondeferred procedure [namely the binding in type(t) would be the procedure called]. It's not worth rewriting the paragraph to make it crystal clear, but I think its intent is subverted if the reference to x%nondeferred_proc is simply changed to x%deferred_proc; the submitter really is talking about nondeferred procedures here. --Michael I.