From owner-sc22wg5 Thu Jul 19 17:13:48 2001 Received: from atmos.uiuc.edu (gale.atmos.uiuc.edu [128.174.80.128]) by dkuug.dk (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA82122 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 17:13:47 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from hirchert@atmos.uiuc.edu) Received: from [128.174.80.212] (account hirchert HELO hirchert.atmos.uiuc.edu) by atmos.uiuc.edu (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4.6) with ESMTP-TLS id 425403 for SC22WG5@dkuug.dk; Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:13:45 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010719092533.02df6d60@mail.atmos.uiuc.edu> X-Sender: hirchert@mail.atmos.uiuc.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 10:13:45 -0500 To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk From: Kurt W Hirchert Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2084) WG5 letter ballot on Fortran 95 interpretations In-Reply-To: <200106151702.TAA77172@dkuug.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Yes No Number Title -C- --- 000002 Free source form requirement for blank in PRINT statement Part of the text of the question is missing. -Y- --- 000010 Meaning of embedded blanks in namelist input name -Y- --- 000011 G editing typo -Y- --- 000012 Evaluation of Intrinsic Procedures -C- --- 000018 ELEMENTAL procedures with no arguments I am uncomfortable with some of the reasoning behind answer 2, but I have no objection to the final result. -Y- --- 000019 Result of NULL intrinsic associated with CHARACTER(*) dummy argument -Y- --- 000020 Execution of a WHERE statement within a WHERE construct --- -N- 000021 Restrictions on on END INTERFACE Although I can understand why vendors would wish to implement it that way, I find it ludicrous to assert that ".NE." is "identical" to "/=". I do not believe it was our intent to allow this case, and do not see it to be beneficial to the programmer to make such an allowance. If we are insistent on making this _change_ in the requirements of the standard, the edit does appear to be acceptably constructed. -Y- --- 000022 Use of NULL() as initialization -Y- --- 000024 Termination of a partial record by a CLOSE, BACKSPACE, ENDFILE, or REWIND statement -C- --- 000025 List-directed input: types of variables corresponding to repeated values I would have preferred an interpretation in which 2*.TRUE. would be equivalent to .TRUE. .TRUE. and acceptable as input to a LOGICAL variable followed by a CHARACTER variable. -Y- --- 000028 Implicitly Typed Statement Function Character Dummy -Y- --- 000029 Nested Derived Types and Defined Assignment --- -N- 000081 Definition status of derived-type objects with pointer components I agree that a change is necessary, but I still see no justification for totally ignoring pointer components. In my opinion, a more appropriate change would be to require the pointer components not to have an undefined pointer association status. -Y- --- 000085 Public components of private types -C- --- 000087 MOD and MODULO intrinsic functions with zero divisor I believe the text in question was introduced in the effort to make Fortran less incompatible with the computational model of IEEE arithmetic. I believe was wanted to do was to allow the possibility that programs running on IEEE machines would still be standard conforming if MOD or MODULO were invoked with a P argument of zero (producing a NaN result?). However, I do not believe it was our intent to force non-IEEE machines to accept this implicit division by zero. Thus, I believe the existing text to be defective. The proposed new text goes too far the other way, but I believe that it gets us closer to where we want to be than the existing text. (I.e., the new text allows processors to be built the ways we wanted to allow, while the existing text does not. The deficiency in the proposed text is in labeling some programs to be non-conforming that we intended to be conforming, but the programs so labeled are ones whose portability is questionable, so the effect of this mislabeling is minimal.) -Y- --- 000088 INTRINSIC statement and attribute -Y- --- 000089 Rules allowing duplicate names -Y- --- 000090 What do ``Prior Specification'' and ``defined previously'' mean? --- -N- 000091 Definition of "present" is defective I agree with the intent of this interpretation, but I am concerned that the edit is inadequate. My specific concern is that by addressing host association in this aspect of PRESENT, we may have implicitly disallowed other useful host association. My particular concern was whether an internal procedure can use PRESENT on one of its host's dummy arguments. If someone can convince me that this new definition of present raises no questions about such uses of PRESENT, I will withdraw my objection. Alternatively, I would restructure the recursion in the definition: "A dummy argument or entity host-associated with a dummy argument is not <> if the dummy argument is (1) not associated with an actual argument, or (2) is associated with an actual argument that is not present. Otherwise, it is present." This makes it clear that the concept of being present applies to entities host-associated with a dummy argument, so the PRESENT intrinsic function may be applied to them. -Y- --- 000092 Values of the PAD= Specifier in the INQUIRE Statement -Y- --- 000093 Allocatable arrays as actual arguments -Y- --- JP-06 Type declaration statements -- Kurt W Hirchert hirchert@atmos.uiuc.edu UIUC Department of Atmospheric Sciences +1-217-265-0327