From owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Tue Jul 29 10:51:42 2003 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) id h6T8pgbC057177 for sc22wg5-domo; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:51:42 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk) X-Authentication-Warning: ptah.dkuug.dk: majordom set sender to owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk using -f Received: from fecit.fr ([195.25.240.221]) by dkuug.dk (8.12.8p1/8.9.2) with ESMTP id h6T8p1Ec057170 for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:51:32 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from waveren@fujitsu.fr) Received: from door.fecit.fr (door.fecit.fr [195.25.240.200]) by fecit.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA25700; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:46:48 +0200 Received: (from tis-mta@localhost) by door.fecit.fr (8.12.1/8.12.1) id h6T8o4r0028710; Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:50:04 +0200 (CEST) X-Authentication-Warning: door.fecit.fr: tis-mta set sender to using -f Received: from (ndhc20.math.tu-dresden.de [141.30.71.189]) by door.fecit.fr via smap (V2.1) id xma022982; Tue, 29 Jul 03 10:49:55 +0200 Message-ID: <3F2634D0.BE9C083D@fujitsu.fr> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:48:16 +0200 From: Matthijs van Waveren Organization: Fujitsu Systems Europe Ltd X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Whitlock, Stan" CC: x3j3 , WG5 Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.2903) Attn WG5: F95 interp letter ballot #7 results References: <200307281337.h6SDbM7N050919@dkuug.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Precedence: bulk Dear Stan, Thanks for your F95 interp letter ballot results. They have become WG5 paper N1554, and are on the table at Dresden. We have two questions: 1) Is the vote count accurate ? Interps JP-17 and JP-24 are said to have both 12 Yes votes and 2 No votes, whereas you say that 12 members voted. 2) Sun (Ingrassia) requests that you change 'Meadows' to 'Ingrassia' in the line with: "12 of 14 J3 members voted {no ballot received from Hirchert or Meadows}." Matthijs van Waveren "Whitlock, Stan" wrote: > > Mallory - please give this a J3 paper number and put it on the > server for meeting #165. > > To WG5 meeting in Dresden - please consider the results of this J3 > letter ballot on F95 interps. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > To: J3 and WG5 03-xxx > From: /interp/Stan Whitlock > Subj: F95 interp letter ballot #7 results > > Here are the results of the J3 letter ballot #7 on F95 interps. > > 5 Fortran 95 interpretations are currently "passed by J3 meeting" in > 02-006Ar1.txt. This was the letter ballot phase to go from "passed > by J3 meeting" to "passed by J3 letter ballot". > > 12 of 14 J3 members voted {no ballot received from Hirchert or Meadows}. > > The following Fortran 95 interpretations were balloted: > > Result Yes No Number Title > > Passed 12 0 000099 STAT= variable requirements in ALLOCATE > Passed 12 0 000100 TARGET attribute and structure components > Pending 10 2 000101 Generic resolution > Passed 12 2 JP-17 Multiple occurrence of namelist group > object > in namelist group > Passed 12 2 JP-24 The bnf term shared-term-do-construct > > 4 interps pass the letter ballot {99, 100, JP-17, JP-24} - these can be > accepted by WG5 and become "Passed by WG5 ballot". > > 1 interp is still pending, based on 2 no votes - /interp would appreciate > any > input WG5 would like to give on this interp: > > * Rob James' NO vote on interpretation 000101: > > The proposed edit for this interpretation clearly makes the > code in > question non-conforming, but I believe it goes too far. The > edit also > makes the following code non-conforming, although the intent > of the code is > obvious: > > INTERFACE g > SUBROUTINE s1(p) > INTERFACE > SUBROUTINE p > END SUBROUTINE > END INTERFACE > END SUBROUTINE > SUBROUTINE s2(p) > INTERFACE > REAL FUNCTION p() > END FUNCTION > END INTERFACE > END SUBROUTINE > END INTERFACE > INTERFACE > SUBROUTINE procedure > END SUBROUTINE > END INTERFACE > CALL g(procedure) > END > > I believe that this code should be standard-conforming. > Perhaps an edit to > clarify what it means for a reference to be "consistent > with" a specific > interface (in section 14.1.2.4.1) would be more appropriate, > rather than a > blanket restriction on generic interfaces like the one > appearing in the > code in question. > > * Craig Dedo's No vote on Interpretation 101: > > I agree with Rob James. Let's see if there is a fairly > painless way > to implement his idea. If, after due consideration, it > appears that his > idea will be unduly complicated, I will change my vote to > "Yes". > > The text of these interpretetions is attached. Each interpretation > starts with a row of "-"s. > > Thanks /Stan