From JANSHEP@torolab2.vnet.ibm.com Mon Jul 25 11:41:00 1994 Received: from vnet.ibm.com by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA19661 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Mon, 25 Jul 1994 21:43:25 +0200 Message-Id: <199407251943.AA19661@dkuug.dk> Received: from TOROLAB2 by VNET.IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3955; Mon, 25 Jul 94 15:39:20 EDT Date: Mon, 25 Jul 94 15:41:00 EDT From: "Janice Shepherd" To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Interpretation 52 X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Interpretation 52, which is amongst the interpretations that have been published as part of corrigendum 1, has the following edit: Add after the first sentence of the first constraint of 12.5.4: [182:4] If contains a reference to a function or a function dummy procedure, the reference must not require an explicit interface, the function must not require an explicit interface or be a transformational intrinsic, and the result must be scalar. If an argument to a function or a function dummy procedure is array valued, it must be an array name. This new text appears to disallow statement functions that were valid in FORTRAN 77. Consider the intrinsic INT. In Fortran 90 INT has an optional argument and thus must have an explicit interface (which it does have as it is an intrinsic and all intrinsics have explicit interfaces). In FORTRAN 77 the following is a valid statement function: ISF(A) = INT(A) ... WRITE(6,*) ISF(2.3) The new constraint, which indicates "the function must not require an explicit interface", means that this is a not a valid Fortran 90 statement function. Do you agree that this is a problem? (or am I misunderstanding the edit?) If it is agreed that this is a problem, I'm not sure what is the best way to address this problem. As I indicated this interpretation was part of the first corrigendum. Should I submit a new interpretation question? Thanks. Janice -------------------------------- Janice C. Shepherd IBM Toronto Lab.