From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Tue Dec  9 19:54:50 2008
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org
Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 94A15CA343D; Tue,  9 Dec 2008 19:54:50 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nspiron-2.llnl.gov (nspiron-2.llnl.gov [128.115.41.82])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35C8CA3439
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue,  9 Dec 2008 19:54:48 +0100 (CET)
X-Attachments: None
Received: from cyrus2.llnl.gov ([128.15.97.105])
  by nspiron-2.llnl.gov with ESMTP; 09 Dec 2008 10:54:46 -0800
From: Aleksandar Donev <donev1@llnl.gov>
Organization: LLNL
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3797) [ukfortran]  N1761, TYPE(*), BIND(C) and arrays
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:54:47 -0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.4
References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20081209172327.D05AFC178D6@www2.open-std.org> <20081209184656.288E8CA3439@www2.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20081209184656.288E8CA3439@www2.open-std.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200812091054.47190.donev1@llnl.gov>
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tuesday 09 December 2008 10:46, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> In other words, N1761 has started to use the term "assumed-shape" to
> refer to actual arguments, without specifying what it means when used
> like that.
I only found this one sentence where that was the case, and that 
sentence simply needs to be fixed by replacing "object" with "dummy 
argument". All the other appearences of "assumed-shape" in N1761 are 
prefixed or suffixed with dummy argument. I just grepped.
"A <<Fortran descriptor>> is an structure used by the processor to
describe an object that is assumed-shape, assumed-rank, allocatable,
or a data pointer."

Is this one mistaken sentence really the cause of such alarm? It is very 
easy to find issues with something you dislike and blow them out of 
proportion. It is not constructive. Notice how my answers to Reinhold's 
posts are much more cooperative---at least I can understand what he is 
asking and why. I have yet to understand exactly what you are irked 
about.

Best,
Aleks