From janshep@watson.ibm.com  Thu Jan 18 20:10:27 1996
Received: from watson.ibm.com (watson.ibm.com [129.34.139.4]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id UAA20420 for <sc22wg5@dkuug.dk>; Thu, 18 Jan 1996 20:10:23 +0100
Message-Id: <199601181910.UAA20420@dkuug.dk>
Received: from YKTVMV by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6613;
   Thu, 18 Jan 96 14:09:57 EST
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 96 14:07:30 EST
From: "Janice C. Shepherd ((914) 784-6313)" <janshep@watson.ibm.com>
X-Addr: J1-K10, Hawthorne 2
        tieline 863
To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk
Subject: (SC22WG5.1001) edits to Fortran 95 draft standard.

Ref:  Note from Richard Maine (attached)

 < Some text deleted >

>
>2. The edits for case (ii) and case (iv), which I quote in whole
>   below, contain the parenthetical phrases (there may be only one)
>   and (there may be more than one).
>
>>    "Case (ii):  If TARGET is present and is a scalar target, the
>>                 result is true if TARGET is not a zero-sized storage
>>                 sequence and the target associated with POINTER occupies
>>                 the same storage units (there may be only one) as TARGET.
>>                 Otherwise the result is false. If the POINTER is
>>                 disassociated the result is false.
>
>>     Case (iv):  If TARGET is present and is a scalar pointer, the result
>>                 is true if the target associated with POINTER and the
>>                 target associated with TARGET are not zero-sized storage
>>                 sequences and they occupy the same storage units (there
>>                 may be more than one).  Otherwise the result is false.
>>                 If either POINTER or TARGET is disassociated, the result
>>                 is false.
>
>   I propose to just delete these parenthetical phrases.  If they aren't
>   deleted, they at least need some rewording.  I tried to reword them,
>   but I found that I couldn't figure out for sure what they were trying
>   to say, which made it hard for me to do the rewording.
>
>   First, I couldn't understand why the two versions of the parenthetical
>   phrase were different.  In both cases, as far as I can see, there
>   might be any number of storage units >= 1 (zero is excluded).  Both
>   cases are for scalars, but the scalars might be of a type that has
>   more than one storage unit (complex, double precision, character*x,
>   or a derived type).  Does the difference in wording imply some
>   distinction that I don't appreciate?  This is what most confused me.

I don't recall if there was a reason for the distinction. I certainly
don't see any distinction now. Deleting them sounds fine to me.

Janice