From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Mon Apr 21 02:31:48 2014
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 8955835871B; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 02:31:48 +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 16C5E3586D1
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 02:31:43 +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 s3L0VbDI092642
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:31:42 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <C6FBBFD72EF54668830F23EBF61B161C@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
References: <20140312154430.1B7899EB083@www.open-std.org><20140415075245.363AC3583C0@www.open-std.org><20140418184256.B9AAF358553@www.open-std.org> <D53F32DA-17EC-4520-887F-65442212E685@cray.com>
In-Reply-To: <D53F32DA-17EC-4520-887F-65442212E685@cray.com>
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5232)  [ukfortran] Ballot on draft DTS
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:31:35 +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

On Apr 15, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Malcolm Cohen <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp> wrote:
> In particular,
> (1) the collectives CO MAX, CO MIN, CO REDUCE, CO SUM, should be split into 
> two
> forms, one with RESULT, one without.  The one with RESULT should have SOURCE 
> as
> INTENT(IN), the one without should have SOURCE as INTENT(INOUT).  RESULT must
> not be optional.  The SOURCE INTENT(IN) form should have no coarray 
> restrictions
> on SOURCE.

Bill Long contended:
>Currently there are no coarray restrictions on SOURCE (with or without a 
>RESULT).

That is not what N2007 says, it has

  "If the SOURCE or RESULT argument to a collective subroutine is a whole 
coarray the corresponding ultimate arguments on all images of the current team 
shall be corresponding coarrays as described in 2.4.7 of ISO/IEC 1539-1:2010."

Clearly this only makes sense for the result argument (note lower case).

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