From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Fri Jan 8 13:27:30 2016 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 BA59C35890E; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:27:30 +0100 (CET) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Greylist: delayed 1831 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at www5.open-std.org; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:27:29 CET Received: from aserp1050.oracle.com (aserp1050.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D872835692A for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:27:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com (aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69]) by aserp1050.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u08BuwNm029040 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:56:59 GMT Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u08BupuR008112 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:56:52 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u08BupxC017002 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:56:51 GMT Received: from abhmp0005.oracle.com (abhmp0005.oracle.com [141.146.116.11]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u08BupP0010929 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:56:51 GMT Received: from [10.132.140.77] (/10.132.140.77) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:56:50 -0800 Message-ID: <568FA38C.2070100@oracle.com> Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:54:52 -0800 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 11 and J3 letter ballot 35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: aserp1040.oracle.com [141.146.126.69] Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk The following Fortran 2008 interpretations are being balloted: Yes No Number Title --- -N- F08/0128 Is recursive USE within a submodule permitted? -Y- --- F08/0138 Type extension in submodules -C- --- F08/0139 Is the name of an external procedure that has a binding label a local identifier? -Y- --- F08/0140 Assign to deferred-length coindexed character variable -Y- --- F08/0141 Can a statement function have a variable-length PDT result? -Y- --- F08/0142 Is useless module extension permitted? -Y- --- F08/0143 May a pure procedure have an INTENT(OUT) polymorphic component? --- -N- F08/0144 Is nonadvancing I/O allowed during execution of DO CONCURRENT? ------------------------- F08/0128 N Answer A1 states that the example was not intended to be conforming. Paper 09-141, which is cited in the discussion section, begins The prohibition against a submodule accessing or referencing its ancestor module by use association appears to have been wrong-headed in the first place. There appears to be no reason to keep it in any form. I did not attend the meeting during which paper 09-141 was approved, but I find it hard to believe that the committee could have passed that paper without intending to allow such usage. I see no technical objection to implementing the feature as it is currently specified. Paper 09-141 contains remarks to that effect. The comments Reinhold Bader included in his ballot convinced me that the feature is useful, and that its removal will put a burden on users. If the feature is retained, Q2 and Q3 need answers. My reading of the Fortran 2008 standard as written is that the answer to both questions is "yes". On a minor note, the line Note that the "submodule TR", Technical Report 19767 contains, an edit does not conform to the rules of punctuation of American English. In American English, the comma that terminates an appositive phrase appears at the end of the phrase, not after the following verb. Also, the appearance of quotation marks in that line would be considered misuse in American English. It implies that the term "submodule TR" has an unconventional meaning, which I do not think is the case here. ------------------------- F08/0139 C The keywords "TRANSFER" and "zero-sized scalar" listed in the KEYWORDS line of the header are not appropriate for the topic of the interpretation. ------------------------- F08/0144 N The ANSWER section of the interp states It was intended that nonadvancing input/output not be permitted within a DO CONCURRENT construct. An edit is provided to address this oversight. However, the edit provided allows nonadvancing input/output within a DO CONCURRENT construct in the case of child data transfer statements. The final sentence of Subclause 9.6.2.4 of the Fortran 2008 standard states A formatted child data transfer statement is a nonadvancing input/output statement, and any ADVANCE= specifier is ignored. The answer might be changed to It was intended that nonchild nonadvancing input/output not be permitted within a DO CONCURRENT construct. for which the proposed edit is adequate. I prefer changing the edit to Nonadvancing input/output shall not occur (9.6.4.2) in the range of the loop. I included the subclause citation, because the word "occur" is used in the sense specified in that subclause, not in its conventional sense. I would not object to removing the citation. ------------------------- Robert Corbett representing Oracle America