From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Thu Jan 15 11:29:33 2015 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 34EFE35733E; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:29:33 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.151]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEDD3571C5 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:29:30 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:55126) by ppsw-51.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.157]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1YBhg8-0007hp-Xg (Exim 4.82_3-c0e5623) (return-path ); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:29:28 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1YBhg8-0001Kh-BP (Exim 4.72) (return-path ); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 10:29:28 +0000 Received: from [87.114.35.90] by old-webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.5); 15 Jan 2015 10:29:28 +0000 Date: 15 Jan 2015 10:29:28 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: "Whitlock, Stan" Cc: WG5 Subject: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5416) RE: J3/14-279: J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #32 revised - due 9-Jan-2015 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Corrected version - sorry about the mistake. I am not a member of J3, but agree with all of the interpretations except (potentially) F08/0122(6). F08/0105 The answer might be clearer if it added something like the following "Arguments with the VALUE and ASYNCHRONOUS attributes can be used for asynchronous transfers that both start and complete during that procedure call." F08/0115 I still have a concern about the case when the procedure is in a language other than Fortran. The point is that it could be argued that a C parameter is not a dummy argument, and the interface block is not evaluated by the call, so this does not apply. However, formally, that becomes relevant only when TS 29113 is incorporated (i.e. for Fortran 2xxx). F08/0120 In the answer, "emend" => "amend". F08/0122 (6): The answer makes the intent clear, and I will try to write a J3 paper explaining why there is a problem. It is not an easy one to explain. Regards, Nick Maclaren. _______________________________________________ ukfortran mailing list http://lists.accu.org/mailman/listinfo/ukfortran