From maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov Tue Jan 23 21:35:16 1996 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (altair.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.34.72]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id VAA28079 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 21:35:11 +0100 Received: by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA10153; Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:49:16 +0800 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 07:49:16 +0800 Message-Id: <9601231549.AA10153@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> From: Richard Maine To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk In-Reply-To: <199601230926.KAA11451@dkuug.dk> ("Erik W. Kruyt (+31 71 5276804)"@dkuug.dk) Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1006) Suggested edit to X3J3/95-007R2 content-length: 0 Erik Kruyt said: > [X3J3/95-007R2] page 60, line 7 and line 18 > "the array-spec shall be a deferred-shape-spec-list" > should read: > "the deferred-shape-spec-list shall be present" > > Argument: we want to exclude the sole array name, which is not an array-spec > (R513). It seems to me like the sole array name case is already excluded, in that both of these sentences begin with "If the DIMENSION attribute for an array-name is specified elsewhere...". If there was just a whole array name, then it wouldn't constitute a spacification of the DIMENSION attribute. Perhaps I misunderstand the argument. In any case, I find the proposed wording easy to misinterpret. Presumably it means that the deferred-shape-spec-list must be present in the place "elsewhere" that the DIMENSION attribute is specified. However, since it is in a constraint directly following a syntax rule which has an optional deferred-shape-spec-list, I would find it very easy to misread the requirement as relating to the deferred-shape-spec-list in that syntax rule. -- Richard Maine maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov