From JLS@liverpool.ac.uk Mon Jul 20 15:31:06 1992 Received: from danpost.uni-c.dk by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA01195; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:31:06 +0200 Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by danpost.uni-c.dk (5.65/1.34) id AA18591; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:31:30 +0200 Message-Id: <9207201331.AA18591@danpost.uni-c.dk> Received: from vm.uni-c.dk by vm.uni-c.dk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 5003; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:31:28 DNT Received: from UKACRL.BITNET by vm.uni-c.dk (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4467; Mon, 20 Jul 92 15:31:28 DNT Received: from RL.IB by UKACRL.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 3027; Mon, 20 Jul 92 14:30:48 BST Received: from RL.IB by UK.AC.RL.IB (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 5015; Mon, 20 Jul 92 14:30:40 BST Via: UK.AC.LIV.IBM; 20 JUL 92 14:15:16 BST Received: from JLS@UK.AC.LIVERPOOL by MAILER(4.4.t); 20 Jul 1992 14:11:46 BST Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 13:58:48 BST From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: Zero sized arrays To: F90 Interpretations , SC22/WG5 members X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Just a piece of philosophical comment on Dick's and Guy's discussion. If we are operating as lawers interpreting the letter of the law then we may have to tollerate mistakes in drafting and attempt to explain them as clearly as we can. BUT I would claim that is not what maintenance of a standard is. Rather I would say we are supposed to clarify the text where it is correct but unclear and to fix it when it is wrong. I would agree with both when it is said that zero-sized arrays were meant to be the non-exceptional boundary cases of non-zero ones, and I would go further and say if they are not properly defined as such by the current text then we should include the necessary correction in a corrigendum document asap. Lawrie