From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org  Tue Dec  9 21:32:32 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 E2A3FCA343D; Tue,  9 Dec 2008 21:32:32 +0100 (CET)
X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.137])
	by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C500CA3439
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Tue,  9 Dec 2008 21:32:31 +0100 (CET)
X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found
X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:56346)
	by ppsw-7.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25)
	with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1LA9Fv-0008UH-Mo (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:32:31 +0000
Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk)
	with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1LA9Fv-0001yP-1l (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org
	(return-path <nmm1@hermes.cam.ac.uk>); Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:32:31 +0000
Received: from [83.67.89.123] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk
	with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.1); 09 Dec 2008 20:32:31 +0000
Date: 09 Dec 2008 20:32:31 +0000
From: "N.M. Maclaren" <nmm1@cam.ac.uk>
To: WG5 <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3799) (j3.2006)   N1761, TYPE(*),	BIND(C) and arrays
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.3.1.0812092032310.32264@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20081209185450.B4B95CA3439@www2.open-std.org>
References: <20081127193527.EF00DC178D9@www2.open-std.org>
 <20081209172327.D05AFC178D6@www2.open-std.org>
 <20081209184656.288E8CA3439@www2.open-std.org>
 <20081209185450.B4B95CA3439@www2.open-std.org>
X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

On Dec 9 2008, Aleksandar Donev 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.

Eh?  I am NOT picking nits about its wording - I am talking about its basic
DESIGN.  I gave an example program, full of problematic examples and, as I
said, I can provide more.

I thought of what N1761 specified (and tried to interpret its wording as
constructively as possibole) and I can't make head or tail of what it
specifies in those cases.  Have you read that example program?  Can't you
see the problem?

Bill keeps talking C calling Fortran.  Fine.  In THAT case, I agree that
all of the arguments are dummy arguments.  That isn't the issue.  What
about the case of Fortran calling C?  PLEASE take a look at that program
and consider the issues.

> I have yet to understand exactly what you are irked about.

Well, excluding what didn't happen in Tokyo, I am irked because nobody has
even considered the issues I have raised, and I have got flamed for honest
attempts to tackle what is a serious problem.  All you and Bill seem to do
is to deny that problems exist, even if they are shown to exist (and be
serious).

The point about the ballot (according to the WG5 convenor) is to receive
comments so that N1761 can be improved.  But I can find no evidence that
anyone is prepared to improve it, when the flaws are in its basic design.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email:  nmm1@cam.ac.uk
Tel.:  +44 1223 334761    Fax:  +44 1223 334679





