From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Wed Dec 25 01:35:21 2013
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 EEE4635824E; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 01:35:20 +0100 (CET)
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 2B42D356A58
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 01:35:17 +0100 (CET)
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 rBP0ZCxl068225
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Wed, 25 Dec 2013 00:35:15 GMT
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <099FBA7CD1E449A8BC59EFDF08367F46@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "sc22wg5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20131224160359.87D023582DB@www.open-std.org> <20131224204504.9F3FD358314@www.open-std.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131224204504.9F3FD358314@www.open-std.org>
Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5173) (j3.2006) Draft result of ballot on Corrigendum 3
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 09:35:13 +0900
Organization: =?UTF-8?B?5pel5pysTkFH?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="UTF-8";
	reply-type=response
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

Bill Long writes:
>Are the replacement edits really correct?

Yes.

>On 12/24/13 10:03 AM, John Reid wrote:
>> [95:33-] Insert new BNF term
>>    "R520a <assumed-implied-spec> <<is>>  [ <lower-bound> : ] *"
>>
>
>OK, a new, reusable name for  [<lower-bound>:]* .

Yes.

>> [95:33] R521 <assumed-size-spec>, after "<<is>>"
>>    Replace entire RHS
>>      "[ <explicit-shape-spec>, ]... [ <lower-bound> : ] *"
>>    with
>>      "<explicit-shape-spec-list>, <assumed-implied-spec>"
>
>So now there is a mandatory comma as part of this syntax?

I should hope so!!!!!  Having no comma between the preceding 
explicit-shape-spec-list and the assumed-implied-spec would be a serious error, 
e.g.

  REAL X(1:100 30:*)

I think we can all agree there needs to be a comma between the 
explicit-shape-spec-list "1:100" and the assumed-implied-spec "30:*".

>  It would seem this should be
>
>"[<explicit-shape-spec-list>,] <assumed-implied-spec>"

No, the case when the explicit-shape-spec-list is missing is the ambiguous case. 
Which is why we have the edit

>>[95:32] 5.3.8.5p1
>>  Replace sentence
>>    "An assumed-size array is declared with an <assumed-size-spec>."
>>  with
>>    "A dummy argument is declared to be an assumed-size array by an
>>     <assumed-size-spec> or an <implied-shape-or-assumed-size-spec>."
>>{Now two ways of declaring assumed size.}

...
>> [96:26] R522,
>>    Replace right-hand-side (after "<<is>>")
>>      "[ <lower-bound> : ] *"
>>    with
>>      "<assumed-implied-spec>, <assumed-implied-spec-list>".
>
>Similarly here, should this not be
>
>"<assumed-implied-spec> [, <assumed-implied-spec-list>]"

No.

>or better, just
>
>"<assumed-implied-spec-list>"

No.

>since the <-list> syntax requires at least one instance of the thing being 
>qualified.  [22:16].

Those just reintroduce the ambiguity the interp is complaining about in the 
first place... the complaint wasn't "we don't have a catchy name for [ 
<lower-bound> : ] *", it was "the syntax is ambiguous".  The catchy name is only 
introduced because it simplifies the otherwise-confusing BNF and prose 
descriptions.

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