From maine@ALTAIR.DFRC.NASA.GOV Wed Jun 27 17:26:49 2001 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 RAA32621 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 17:26:47 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from maine@ALTAIR.DFRC.NASA.GOV) Received: from mail.dfrc.nasa.gov by mailhub.dfrc.nasa.gov with ESMTP for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:24:39 -0700 Received: from altair.dfrc.nasa.gov ([130.134.129.8]) by mail.dfrc.nasa.gov (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-71686U2500L200S0V35) with ESMTP id gov for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:26:10 -0700 Received: (from maine@localhost) by altair.dfrc.nasa.gov (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f5RFQ8005574; Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:26:08 -0700 From: Richard Maine MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <15161.64272.430545.905780@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:26:08 -0700 (PDT) To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: (SC22WG5.2084) WG5 letter ballot on Fortran 95 interpretations In-Reply-To: <200106151702.TAA77172@dkuug.dk> References: <200106151702.TAA77172@dkuug.dk> X-Mailer: VM 6.75 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid I forget whether or not I get a vote on wg5 ballots. (Technically, I'm only Malcolm's alternate on J3, but I'm not sure how that reflects at the wg5 level). But for whatever it may be worth... > The following Fortran 95 interpretations are being balloted: > > Yes No Number Title > > -x- --- 000002 Free source form requirement for blank in > PRINT statement > > -x- --- 000010 Meaning of embedded blanks in namelist input > name > > -x- --- 000011 G editing typo > > -x- --- 000012 Evaluation of Intrinsic Procedures > > -x- --- 000018 ELEMENTAL procedures with no arguments > > -x- --- 000019 Result of NULL intrinsic associated with > CHARACTER(*) dummy argument > > -x- --- 000020 Execution of a WHERE statement within a > WHERE construct > > -x- --- 000021 Restrictions on on END > INTERFACE > > -x- --- 000022 Use of NULL() as initialization > > -x- --- 000024 Termination of a partial record by a CLOSE, > BACKSPACE, ENDFILE, or REWIND statement > > -x- --- 000025 List-directed input: types of variables > corresponding to repeated values > > -x- --- 000028 Implicitly Typed Statement Function > Character Dummy > > -x- --- 000029 Nested Derived Types and Defined Assignment > > -x- --- 000081 Definition status of derived-type objects > with pointer components > > -x- --- 000085 Public components of private types > > -C- --- 000087 MOD and MODULO intrinsic functions with > zero divisor I'm slightly concerned here about IEEE compatability. Does IEEE say anything about this case? (I don't actually know). If it does, then we'd at least want to allow IEEE compatability. True, a processor could always give the IEEE result as an "extension". But if the intent is to allow this, it might be better to do something along the lines of the words in the 4th para of 7.1.7, which says that operations are prohibited "if the result is not defined by the arithmetic used by the processor". This is perhaps more a question for f2k that for f9x. But I'd hate to pass this as an f9x interp and then see it used as a reason why we couldn't allow the IEEE behavior in f2k. On the other hand, if IEEE doesn't define a result for these operations, then my concern is moot. > > -x- --- 000088 INTRINSIC statement and attribute > > -x- --- 000089 Rules allowing duplicate names > > -x- --- 000090 What do ``Prior Specification'' and > ``defined previously'' mean? > > -x- --- 000091 Definition of "present" is defective > > -x- --- 000092 Values of the PAD= Specifier in the > INQUIRE Statement > > -x- --- 000093 Allocatable arrays as actual arguments > > -x- --- JP-06 Type declaration statements -- Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; maine@altair.dfrc.nasa.gov | experience comes from bad judgment. | -- Mark Twain