From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Wed Oct 19 08:35:08 2011
Return-Path: <owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org>
X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8
Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org
Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521)
	id 8013F356911; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:35:08 +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 CC15A356910
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:35:06 +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 1RGPjy-00082o-4v; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:35:02 +0900
Message-ID: <DF862AC829C646C6AAD3681765605672@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: <robert.corbett@oracle.com>
Cc: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20110907091150.AA67F3568C0@www.open-std.org> <20111019061816.79D31356910@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20111019061816.79D31356910@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4571) (j3.2006) Second WG5 ballot oninterpretations
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:35:05 +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

>I do not agree that the restrictions on DIM arguments are
>pointless.  While they are not necessary to permit conforming
>implementations, they simplify code generation and allow more
>efficient code to be generated in some cases.

No they don't.  Appearance of a previously-prohibited optional dummy with this 
interp has precisely the same meaning as it appearing parenthesised would, i.e. 
there is no passing-on of the optionality.

Since there is no passing-on of the optionality (an absent one is not 
permitted), you will need a concrete counter-example to demonstrate different 
semantics.

Cheers,
-- 
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.