From zongaro@ca.ibm.com Thu Mar 30 16:35:55 2000 Received: from e32.bld.us.ibm.com (e32.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.130]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA26607 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:35:54 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from zongaro@ca.ibm.com) From: zongaro@ca.ibm.com Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.132.205]) by e32.bld.us.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA59690 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:32:20 -0500 Received: from d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com (d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.142.5]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.9.3m3/NCO v2.07) with SMTP id HAA21206 for ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:35:52 -0700 Received: by d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 872568B2.00502AF1 ; Thu, 30 Mar 2000 07:35:38 -0700 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMCA@IBMUS To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Message-ID: <872568B2.0050281D.00@d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:39:26 -0500 Subject: (SC22WG5.1753) Revised proposal for Interpretation 001 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi John, If your statement of clarification is added, I believe a second edit is required to address the analogous case of FORALL. Here's my proposed edit. Page 281, Clause 14.1.3, at the end of the second paragraph [281:4] add: The appearance of a name as an in a FORALL statement or FORALL construct is not an implicit declaration of a variable whose scope is the scoping unit that contains the statement or construct. By the way, there's typo in the directions for the edit on page 280: "paragragh". Thanks, Henry ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Zongaro IBM Distributed Debugger Development IBM SWS Toronto Lab Tie Line 778-6044 Phone (416) 448-6044 Internet id: zongaro@ca.ibm.com ---------------------- Forwarded by Henry Zongaro/Toronto/IBM on 03/30/2000 09:27 AM --------------------------- John Reid on 03/30/2000 06:11:13 AM Please respond to John Reid To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk cc: Subject: (SC22WG5.1753) Revised proposal for Interpretation 001 Thank you for all the comments. My conclusion is that there should be an extra sentence in the standard to clarify the situation. I have revised my proposal to J3 to include this. John Reid. ............................................... Date: 30th March 2000 To: J3 From: John Reid Subject: Interpretation 001 Here are drafts for the ANSWER and EDITS sections of 001. They are based on the email from Henry Zongaro. Also, I propose that the addendum be removed. ANSWER: The implied-DO variable is not visible to the using program. 14.1.3 Statement Entities states, in part, that The name of a variable that appears as the DO variable of an implied-DO in a DATA statement or an array constructor has a scope of the implied-DO list. It has the type and type parameter that it would have if it were the name of a variable in the scoping unit that includes the DATA statement or array constructor and this type must be integer. The words "would have if it were" were intended to convey the idea that the existence of an array constructor or data implied-DO variable does not actually cause an associated variable in the scoping unit to come into existence. Also, the following text appears in the same section (281:12-14): If the name of a global or local entity accessible in the scoping unit of a statement is the same as the name of a statement entity in that statement, the name is interpreted within the scope of the statement entity as that of the statement entity. The word "If" here implies that there need not be any such global or local entity with the same name as that of the statement entity. The edit makes this clear. EDIT: Page 280, Clause 14.1.3, at the end of the first paragragh (280:44) add: The appearance of a name as the DO variable of an implied-DO in a DATA statement or an array constructor is not an implicit declaration of a variable whose scope is the scoping unit that contains the statement.