From zongaro@ca.ibm.com Fri Jul 14 22:32:40 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 WAA63648 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 22:32:39 +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 QAA17564 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:30:09 -0400 Received: from d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com (d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com [9.99.142.5]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.8.8m3/NCO v4.9) with SMTP id OAA53320 for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:32:33 -0600 Received: by d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 8725691C.0070D482 ; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:32:24 -0600 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMCA@IBMUS To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Message-ID: <8725691C.0070D269.00@d53mta05h.boulder.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:32:06 -0400 Subject: WG5 letter ballot on Fortran 95 interpretations - parts 1 and 2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline The following Fortran 95 interpretations are being balloted. With the help of Paul Gooderham and Kelvin Li, here are my votes. Yes No Number Title --- -X- 000067 Writing zeros Minor comment: The edit to [4:24+], mentions the behaviour of namelist output. Because FORTRAN 77 did not include support for namelist, it's not necessary to mention the change in behaviour. We would recommend changing the start of that edit from "List directed and namelist output statements" to "List-directed output statements". In the edits to [3:32+] and [4:24+], "List directed" should be "List-directed". Substantive comment: We do not believe that the fact that X3J3 changed the representation of real zero under a G edit descriptor, but not in list-directed output, was an oversight. X3J3 was specifically asked to consider changing the G edit descriptor in paper 88(11) JHM-1 "SG11 Clean-up proposals"; that request made no mention of list-directed output. As has been pointed out by Malcolm Cohen and Richard Maine, the treatment of real zero in list-directed output is well-known. Any change would affect many verification files for user programs, not to mention similar verification files in compiler test suites. Such a change should not be entered into lightly in interpretation processing. -X- --- 000068 Asterisks as I/O units -X- --- 000069 What is a numeric character? -X- --- 000070 Asymmetry between constant specification and initialization expressions An editorial comment: the edits on page 39 need to update the section references. [39:15-16] Change "a constant specification expression (7.1.6.2)" to "an initialization expression (7.1.6.1)". {Fix array components.} [39:23-24] Change "a constant specification expression (7.1.6.2)" to "an initialization expression (7.1.6.1)". {Fix character string components.} --- -X- 000071 Character array constructors Consider the following array constructors, where V is a character variable: (/(V(I:I), I=17,15)/) (/('ABC'(J:J), J = 2, 0)/) According to the proposed edits, we believe both of the preceding array constructors would be permitted as zero-sized character array constructors. Subclause 7.1.6.1, list item (8) states that an array constructor implied-DO variable is an initialization expression, if its bounds and stride are initialization expressions; that is the case for both I and J in the examples. List item (1) states, along with [94:28-29] that a subobject of a constant is an initialization expression, if the substring starting point and substring ending point are initialization expressions; that is the case for 'ABC'(J:J). In the first case, the array constructor has an that is a variable with a in which all expressions are initialization expressions; in the second case, the array constructor has an that is an initialization expression. Hence, both comply with the proposed edit to [45:38+]. However, it's not clear what is the length of either array constructor, which is what this interpretation was intended to clarify. In addition, we're still concerned about the anomalies that this change introduces. Consider the following examples, where V is a character variable. According to the proposed edits, the first array constructor would be permitted, but the second would not because it doesn't have an that is an initialization expression or a variable. This seems like an undesirable inconsistency. (/(V, I = 1, 0)/) (/ (/(V, I = 1, 0)/) /) -X- --- 000072 Resolving generic procedure references -X- --- 000076 INTENT(IN) dummy arguments and implied DO loops -X- --- 000077 INTENT(IN) dummy arguments and NULLIFY -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 ------------------------------------------------------------------ At the risk of stating the obvious, the following interpretations are all against Fortran 90; the references are to Fortran 90, rather than Fortran 95. With reference to F90/000185, in particular, it is interesting to note that Fortran 95 already makes explicit the allocation and association status of arrays after an ALLOCATE statement fails (6.3.1). -X- --- F90/000100 ASSOCIATED intrinsic and zero-sized objects -X- --- F90/000179 DO variable with POINTER attribute -X- --- F90/000185 What is the allocation status of an array after an allocation failure? -X- --- F90/000194 Statements between SELECT CASE and CASE 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