From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org  Fri Apr 24 11:02:52 2015
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 886973585D2; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:02:52 +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 278F73569BF
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:02:46 +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 t3O92c0g071041
	for <sc22wg5@open-std.org>; Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:02:43 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@nag-j.co.jp)
Message-ID: <365DA293ACAA469391BB7A1ACFBDAE0F@Maru6>
From: "Malcolm Cohen" <malcolm@nag-j.co.jp>
To: "WG5" <sc22wg5@open-std.org>
Subject: Re: J3/15-159 - J3 Fortran interp letterballot #33 - due 24-Apr-2015
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 18:02:39 +0900
Organization: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCRnxLXBsoQk5BRw==?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-2022-jp";
	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

The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No   Number    Title

-Y-  ---  F08/0126  Can cobounds be referenced in the same type
                     declaration?
-Y-  ---  F08/0127  May an initial line begin with a semicolon?
-C-  ---  F08/0128  Is recursive USE within a submodule permitted?
-Y-  ---  F08/0129  Is CLASS(type) required to refer to a prior type
                     definition?
-Y-  ---  F08/0130  Does coarray allocation sync even with stopped
                     images?
-Y-  ---  F08/0131  Are the changes to C_LOC in the 2010 revision
                     intentional?
-Y-  ---  F08/0132  Can a procedure pointer be declared with an
                     interface block?
-Y-  ---  F08/0133  Is unallocated actual associated with
                     nonallocatable dummy OK?
-Y-  ---  F08/0134  <stat-variable> in an image control statement
-Y-  ---  F08/0135  Vector subscripted actual makes VALUE dummy
                     undefinable?
-Y-  ---  F08/0136  Argument correspondence with VALUE and
                     ASYNCHRONOUS
-C-  ---  F08/0137  Result of TRANSFER when MOLD is an array with
                     element size zero

COMMENT F08/0128:

(1) I did not like adding this (USE of ancestor module) in the first place.  But 
I am even less convinced that we should be redesigning it.

(2) The edit instruction for [100:12] is incomplete: it should state to insert 
the text immediately after the word "descendants" (i.e. before the comma).

COMMENT F08/0137:

(1) The code for example 3 does not show any problem.  I recommend changing
   REAL c
to
   REAL c(0)

(2) The description of the problem is a bit confusing as it only mentions the 
problem in example 1, then goes on to say "these examples".  I recommending, 
after
  the size of a zero-length character is zero,
inserting
  and the size of the above derived types may be zero,

(3) Example 7 is not valid Fortran.  I recommend the change suggested by Bill 
Long.

(4) In the answer, it flatly states that examples 1-3 are not conforming, but 
although this is true for example 1, examples 2 and 3 are conforming on a 
processor that has a nonzero minimum size for a derived type.  I recommend 
changing
   Examples 1-3 are not conforming
to
   Example 1 is not conforming, and if the derived types have size zero in 
examples 2 and 3, those examples are also not conforming,

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