From rah@SSESCO.com Mon May 20 23:43:33 1996 Received: from garbanzo.SSESCO.com (garbanzo.ssesco.com [192.55.187.34]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id XAA19712 for ; Mon, 20 May 1996 23:43:26 +0200 From: rah@SSESCO.com Received: from chips.ssesco.com by garbanzo.SSESCO.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03.SSESCO.srv.92.07.22) id AA26891; Mon, 20 May 1996 16:43:01 -0500 Received: by chips.SSESCO.com (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03.SSESCO.cli.92.10.15) id AA06491; Mon, 20 May 1996 16:42:34 -0500 Message-Id: <9605202142.AA06491@chips.SSESCO.com> Subject: Allocatable Components Liaison Report To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk (wg5) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 16:42:33 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1891 X3J3/96 - 111 Page 1 of 1 To: Malcolm Cohen, WG5, X3J3 From: Dick Hendrickson Subject: Liaison report on Allocatable Components TR Reference: April 29, 1996 version of TR Date: May 16, 1996 This TR appears to be complete except for one major objection and a few relatively minor comments. After having seen two iterations of the concept of automatic deallocation and reallocation for assignment to entities with allocatable components X3J3 believes this feature should be dropped from the TR. It should be the user's responsibility to ensure that the left-hand and right-hand component arrays have the same shape, just as must be done for ordinary arrays. We'd prefer to have the word "minimal" dropped from the various "Implementation Cost" sections. There needs to be a discussion, and probably text added to the standard, discussing the ENTRY statement in an allocatable function. We're concerned about the extension to NULL() to include unallocated arrays. This is a confusing overload, but we do not have a suggested change. The example for REAL_POLYNOMIAL_MODULE contains many errors. RP_ADD_R assigns to an input variable, not the function result. RP_ADD_RP needs P2 in its argument list. The array constructor for P should probably contain a 4. The values for Q should probably be -1, 1 since RP_ADD_R appears to treat the first subscript as the X**0th coefficient. The last sentence in Note 4.34.1 appears to be a hangover from text when automatic (re)allocation was not allowed. The phrase "associated with a dummy argument" (two places) is confusing. Can it be reworded to include something like "an actual argument associated with a corresponding dummy", especially in the clarifying note. In some cases the ":" is missing after "Example".