From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Fri Sep 14 10:48:25 2012
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 AE131356938; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:48:25 +0200 (CEST)
Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org
Received: from nag-j.co.jp (nag-j.co.jp [111.68.142.10])
	by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48304356916
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:48:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Maru6 (218-42-159-105.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.105])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by nag-j.co.jp (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8E8mGbN051034
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:48:20 GMT
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <3D8A306DC8F547E4BEFE27BC02234FF1@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20120914011923.8BC2F356931@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120914011923.8BC2F356931@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4772) [Letter ballot 3 on Fortran 2008interpretations]
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:48:15 +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 15.4.3555.308
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org
Precedence: bulk

Van Snyder wrote:
>My most fundamental objection to the interpretation is that it is
>inconsistent with the requirements of 4.1.2, 4.2, and 13.7.2.  According
>to 4.1.2 and 4.2, A type is characterized by a kind type parameter.  The
>type and kind type parameter value together specify a set of valid
>values.  According to 13.7.2, a function is required to return a value
>that is a member of the set of valid values for the type and kind of its
>result.  The interpretation violates this requirement.

That is simply not the case.  That is not what 13.7.2 says. either before or 
after other interps changed that wording.

Furthermore, even if it did, such an interpretation of the "valid values" 
wording would not result in "better answers" but (in the vast majority of cases) 
worse answers, quite apart from the effects on optimisation.

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