From jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk  Fri Mar 31 16:22:48 2000
Received: from nameserv.rl.ac.uk (nameserv.rl.ac.uk [130.246.135.129])
	by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA30568
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:22:44 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from jkr@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk)
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk [130.246.8.20])
	by nameserv.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA10870
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:22:37 +0100
Received: (from jkr@localhost)
	by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id PAA15114
	for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:23:41 +0100 (BST)
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:23:41 +0100 (BST)
From: John Reid <J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <200003311423.PAA15114@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Subject: Second revision of proposal for Interpretation 001
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Thank you for your further comments. I have added Henry's suggestion
that text for FORALL is needed. Malcolm's comment convinces me that the
edit really is needed. When this text was written (by me, as it
happens), I am sure that the committee did not expect an implied-DO in
an array constructor to provide an implicit declaration of a variable
with the same name in the scoping unit containing the statement. Had
this been so, different (simpler) text would have been appropriate.

Over to J3 at its meeting in May.

John Reid.

...............................................

Date: 31st 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 first edit makes this clear. The second edit makes the same point
for FORALL statements and constructs. 

EDITS: 
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.

Page 281, Clause 14.1.3, at the end of the second paragraph [281:4] add:

   The appearance of a name as an index-name 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.