From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed Oct 19 05:27:40 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 98F6E356906; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:27:40 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A6833565F8 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:27:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=Maru6) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1RGMoX-00078C-Gz for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:27:33 +0900 Message-ID: From: "Malcolm Cohen" To: "WG5" References: <20111018201015.467563568EC@www.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20111018201015.467563568EC@www.open-std.org> Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4567) WG5 letter ballot 2 on Fortran 2008interpretations Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:27:36 +0900 Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3538.513 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3538.513 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Reinhold Bader asks <<< F08/0023: The wording for the suggested replacement text appears a bit strange to me. It is maybe more complicated than necessary. Would not "A pointer that is used in any iteration either shall be previously pointer-assigned, allocated, or nullified in the same iteration or shall not have its pointer association changed during any other iteration." be sufficient? >>> The answer is no, unless you are mentally excluding a set of uses from "used" - and in that case it is not clear which uses you are excluding! That's why the edit spells out the exclusions. I will agree the words are a bit clunky, but making them more vague in the hope that everyone agrees on the unstated assumptions is not an improvement. Cheers, -- ................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.