From hirchert@ccs.uky.edu Wed Mar 29 17:59:05 2000 Received: from mailhost.ccs.uky.edu (mailhost.ccs.uky.edu [128.163.209.59]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA22400 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:59:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hirchert@ccs.uky.edu) Received: from hirchert (hirchert.ccs.uky.edu [128.163.209.36]) by mailhost.ccs.uky.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA10144; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:59:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000329105903.0081e7e0@perseus.ccs.uky.edu> X-Sender: hirchert@perseus.ccs.uky.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:59:03 -0500 To: J.S.Morgan@liverpool.ac.uk From: "Kurt W. Hirchert" Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1743) Interpretation 001 Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk In-Reply-To: <200003291413.QAA22104@dkuug.dk> References: <200003291150.NAA20944@dkuug.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:13 PM 3/29/00 +0100, Steve Morgan wrote: >> I stand by my position that the standard is unambiguous and does not >> need an edit. Please bear in mind how clumsy the corrigendum procedure >> is. Making a change to the Fortran 2000 draft or even adding an >> example is quite another matter. How about an extra sentence in the >> ANSWER part to this effect? >> >How could I have forgotten (i.e. how clumsy...) :-) > >Yes, I agree - something along the lines of Lawrie's words >in the interpretation text would suit me... > > >...interpretation of things like implied do indicies is that > >a. they have the scope of the implied do and >b. they are implicitly declared only in that scope not in the surrounding > host scope. > > > >but can we all agree on that! Kurt and Lawrie seem to think >not. However, unless we get agreement, different compilers >will continue to do it differently and that helps no one. I, too, find the standard unambiguous, but what I see it saying doesn't match Lawrie's desired interpretation. Given the disagreements, I might be persuaded that the standard is ambiguous or incomplete on this point and that it should be "corrected" to match Lawrie's rules. [If we are going to do that, I would also like to revisit the interpretation on the use of intrinsics in specification and initialization expressions.] The corrigendum procedure may be clumsy and slow, but since ISO officially publishes only the corrections and not the interpretations of a standard, a corrigendum may be more effective in getting vendors to change their compilers to provide a uniform behavior in this case. -- Kurt W. Hirchert hirchert@ccs.uky.edu Center for Computational Sciences +606-257-8748