From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Sun Aug 23 15:53:41 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 00AC53586E6; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:53:40 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 14799 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:53:40 CEST Received: from userp1050.oracle.com (userp1050.oracle.com [156.151.31.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F7FE3568C8 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 15:53:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by userp1050.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t7N9l2Bo016142 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:47:02 GMT Received: from aserv0021.oracle.com (aserv0021.oracle.com [141.146.126.233]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id t7N9krpX017461 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:46:54 GMT Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by aserv0021.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7N9kr8N017782 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:46:53 GMT Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t7N9krxK028205 for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:46:53 GMT Received: from [10.132.140.77] (/10.132.140.77) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 23 Aug 2015 02:46:53 -0700 Message-ID: <55D99667.1040509@oracle.com> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 02:46:15 -0700 From: Robert Corbett Reply-To: robert.corbett@oracle.com Organization: Oracle America User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; SunOS sun4u; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110814 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: WG5 Subject: WG5 straw ballot 9 on Fortran 2008 interpretations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81] Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk The following Fortran 2008 interpretations are being balloted: Yes No Number Title -C- --- F08/0105 Is the ASYNCHRONOUS attribute allowed with the VALUE attribute? -Y- --- F08/0110 Interdependence of specifier values in input/output statements -Y- --- F08/0115 ASYNCHRONOUS and argument passing -Y- --- F08/0116 Interoperable procedures -Y- --- F08/0117 TARGET and coindexed arguments -Y -Y- --- F08/0118 Subobject of variable in variable definition context -Y- --- F08/0119 Branching to END BLOCK and END CRITICAL -C- --- F08/0120 Is the name of a procedure pointer a local identifier? -Y- --- F08/0121 Add to introduction defined operations in specification Y exprs -Y- --- F08/0122 Types with coarray components -Y- --- F08/0123 SPACING intrinsic -Y- --- F08/0124 Coindexed object with polymorphic subcomponent -Y- --- F08/0126 Can cobounds be referenced in the same type declaration? -Y- --- F08/0127 May an initial line begin with a semicolon? -C- --- F08/0129 Is CLASS(type) required to refer to a prior type definition? -Y- --- F08/0130 Does coarray allocation sync even with stopped Y 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 in an image control statement -Y- --- F08/0135 Vector subscripted actual makes VALUE dummy undefinable? -Y- --- F08/0136 Argument correspondence with VALUE and ASYNCHRONOUS -Y- --- F08/0137 Result of TRANSFER when MOLD is an array with element size zero ---------------------------------------------------------------------- F08/0105 C The second sentence of the last paragraph of the ANSWER makes an incorrect assertion. The sentence asserts that the cites subclause "prohibits an actual argument that is part of a pending input/output storage sequence affector from being associated with a dummy argument that has the value attribute.". The cited subclause explicitly states that the prohibition applies "for asynchronous input." The preceding paragraph (9.6.4.1, paragraph 5 [220:11-12]) assumes such associations are permitted for asynchronous output. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- F08/0120 C The answer given is fine, indeed obvious. The proposed edit could be improved. It would be better to list procedure pointers with the other categories of procedures. Also, there is no reason to call them "named procedure pointers". If an identifier identifies a procedure pointer, that procedure pointer is necessarily a named procedure pointer. A better edit is [440:6, 16.3.1p1] Replace "external procedures that have binding labels, intrinsic modules" with "external procedures that have binding labels, procedure pointers, intrinsic modules" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- F08/0129 The restrictions requiring CLASS and TYPE specifiers to refer to previously defined derived types are not necessary. One might argue that the restrictions force programmers to write clearer code, but the complexity of what is a allowed makes such arguments weak. Given the complexity compilers for Fortran are currently required to handle, handling CLASS and TYPE specifiers that refer to later defined derived types would not add a significant burden to those compilers. Removal of the restrictions should be considered for a later revision of the Fortran standard. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Corbett representing Oracle America