From maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov Wed Mar 29 18:59:33 2000 Received: from mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov (mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov [130.134.81.12]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA22546 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:59:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:58:52 -0800 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.129.8]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 35-62055U1500L100S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:58:52 -0800 Received: (from maine@localhost) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA25062; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:58:51 -0800 From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <14562.13898.981264.659773@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:58:50 -0800 (PST) To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.1745) Interpretation 001 In-Reply-To: <200003291552.RAA22375@dkuug.dk> References: <200003291413.QAA22104@dkuug.dk> <200003291552.RAA22375@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 9) "Canyonlands" XEmacs Lucid Craig T. Dedo writes: > > ...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. > Should we include Lawries words or something close to it in the normative > text of F2K? I think I'll stay out of the technical argument on this for now (which is not a promisse that I'll continue to do so). Its a tricky and messy issue. Just about anything you come up with is going to look pretty non-intuitive in some light unless one makes major and incompatable revisions in what the standard says. I think either answer has silly consequences and I waffle about which is sillier and which is more consistent with what the standard actually says. So I'll probably just end up going along with the majority. Implied DOs are just a mess in general. But I think its a bit premature to work on wording for f2k until the technical decision is settled. No I don't think the above words are ready to put into f2k exactly as is. And since the whole question revolves around exact choice of wording, I'd be reluctant to commit to "something close to it" until I see what exact wording is proposed. I am quite sufficiently simpleminded to be capable of misreading the above proposed words as follows: The words say that the variable (I'll invoke editorial license to change it to the singular, as is probably more appropriate for actual standardese) is implicitly declared in the scope of the implied DO. I could interpret that as meaning that it is not explicitly declared and that any explicit declarations in the host scope have no effect. That would disagree with the words of the current standard. (And the "interesting" case is where the user explicitly declared the variable in order to give it a non-default kind). I suppose its even possible that Laurie intended this interpretation. It is, after all, the "nothing in the host has anything to do with the implied DO variable" interpretation. But I don't *THINK* this was what the above words were intended to mean. If they are intended to mean what I think, then they need extra qualification in order to make them suitable as standardese. Mostly you've got to get in the bit that they are implicitly declared only if there isn't an applicable explicit declaration in the host. I'd be reluctant to just assume that "of course" this is what implicit declaration means...because there are so many things about the declaration of implied DO variables that are already different from other variables. Yes, I'm being picky and perverse and going out of myway to see if I could possibly misread the words. I think that's my job. -- Richard Maine maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov