From malcolm@brackley.nag.co.uk  Mon Jul  3 16:23:42 2000
Received: from brackley.nag.co.uk ([62.232.54.10])
	by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA22577
	for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:23:33 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from malcolm@brackley.nag.co.uk)
Received: (from malcolm@localhost)
	by brackley.nag.co.uk (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA17518
	for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:23:44 +0100 (BST)
	(envelope-from malcolm)
From: Malcolm Cohen <malcolm@nag.co.uk>
Message-Id: <200007031423.PAA17518@brackley.nag.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.1851) WG5 letter ballot on Fortran 95 interpretations 
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 15:23:44 +0100 (BST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>The following Fortran 95 interpretations are being balloted: 
>
>Yes    No    Number    Title
>
>---    -X-   000067    Writing zeros

This interpretation is not fixing a problem in the standard, but making
an incompatible change - incompatible with Fortran 77 and Fortran 90, and
with the published Fortran 95.  No problem has been identified which
justifies making this incompatible change in a retroactive manner.

Should "magnitude x" in the edits not be "magnitude <x>" in every case?

>-X-    ---   000068    Asterisks as I/O units
>
>-X-    ---   000069    What is a numeric character?
>
>-C-    ---   000070    Asymmetry between constant specification and
>                       initialization expressions

The edits to [54:36] and [56:34] create references to "bounds expression
variables".  Ugh.

I don't know what bounds expression variables are - 3 possibilities spring
immediately to mind:
(1) variables that are the entirety of the bounds expression
(2) variables that appear within a bounds expression
(3) variables that would affect the value of a bounds expression, e.g. which
    are in common and are read by a user-defined function.

Anyway, the sentences on [54:36-37] and [56:33-34] do not appear to add
anything not already a consequence of their immediately preceding sentences.
It would be less confusing if they were notes rather than normative text.

Suggested alternative edits:

[54:36-37] Change "the specification expression variables"
           to "any variables".

[56:34-35] Ditto.

>-X-    ---   000071    Character array constructors
>
>-X-    ---   000072    Resolving generic procedure references
>
>-X-    ---   000076    INTENT(IN) dummy arguments and implied DO loops
>
>---    -X-   000077    INTENT(IN) dummy arguments and NULLIFY

Reinstate page and line numbers "[53:16]" in the edit instructions.
Change "The <pointer-object>" in the edit to "A <pointer-object>".
Change "<null-stmt>" in the edit to "<nullify-stmt>".

>-X-    ---   000079    Pointer Assignment and Allocatable Arrays
>
>-X-    ---   000080    Host association and the EXTERNAL attribute
>
>-X-    ---   000082    Usage of BOZ literal constants
>
>-X-    ---   000083    Scope of array-constructor implied-DO variable
>
>-X-    ---   000084    Events that cause variables to be defined

-- 
...........................Malcolm Cohen, NAG Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
                           (malcolm@nag.co.uk)