From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Fri Dec 24 10:34:33 2004 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-domo1 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-domo1@open-std.org Received: by open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 823431C5FC; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:34:33 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-8.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.114.47]) by open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56F67124BA for ; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:34:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from dial-62-64-237-252.access.uk.tiscali.com ([62.64.237.252]:49373) by mk-smarthost-9.mail.uk.tiscali.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1Chlpq-00065e-3p for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:34:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20041130151151.021653755B@ghz.klid.dk> References: <20041130151151.021653755B@ghz.klid.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <1DD9BBF0-558F-11D9-AFD5-000393AB9EC0@tiscali.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: David Muxworthy From: David Muxworthy Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.3185) WG5 letter ballot on interpretations Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 09:35:15 +0000 To: sc22wg5@open-std.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Yes No Number Title -Y- --- 000004 Value returned by MAXVAL/MINVAL -Y- --- 000006 Character length specification of a function result -Y- --- 000008 Optional arguments to MAX/MIN -Y- --- 000017 Characteristics of an array function result -Y- --- 000023 Termination of the previous record by a WRITE statement -Y- --- 000030 Ordering requirements on definition of specification functions -Y- --- 000031 Association of pointer function result with INTENT(OUT) dummy argument (subsumed by 000074) -Y- --- 000068 Asterisks as I/O units -Y- --- 000074 TARGET dummy arguments and POINTER expressions -C- --- 000078 Resolving generic procedure references -Y- --- 000096 End-of-record and PAD -Y- --- 000098 Are dummy functions returning assumed-length character legal? (duplicate of 000006) -C- --- 000102 mask-expr evaluated only once -Y- --- 000103 Derived type name DOUBLEPRECISION -Y- --- 000104 Representation method of result of REAL -Y- --- F90/000049 Characteristics of function results -Y- --- F90/000070 Characteristics specified by interface bodies -Y- --- F90/000096 Definition of "Declaration" -Y- --- F90/000140 TARGET attribute for a derived-type object with a pointer component -Y- --- F90/000180 Unambiguous generic references -Y- --- F90/000206 Collating sequence inconsistencies -C- --- F90/000207 Integer bit-model inconsistency -Y- --- F90/000208 nonadvancing output followed by list directed output -Y- --- F90/000210 nonadvancing write followed by list directed write -C- --- JP-24 The bnf term shared-term-do-construct -Y- --- F03/0001 Generic type-bound procedures -Y- --- F03/0002 Component value for pointer components -C- --- F03/0003 Referencing deferred bindings {subsumed by F03/0004} -C- --- F03/0004 Type-bound procedures and undefined association status -Y- --- F03/0005 Argument association and the TARGET attribute -Y- --- F03/0006 Intrinsic assignment and allocatable components -Y- --- F03/0007 Finalization of structure constructors in specifications -Y- --- F03/0009 VALUE attribute for passed-object dummy arguments -Y- --- F03/0010 Unlimited polymorphic pointer/allocatable dummy arguments -Y- --- F03/0011 Allocating objects of abstract types -Y- --- F03/0013 VALUE attribute for polymorphic dummy arguments -Y- --- F03/0014 Automatic arrays in interface bodies -Y- --- F03/0015 TARGET attribute for associate names -C- --- F03/0016 Invoking type-bound procedures via array objects Comments: 000078: The edits should also be applied to F03 at 278:5+ 000102: The edits should also be applied to F03 at 147:1 and 147:7 F90/000207: The edits should also be applied to F03 at 293:5-6 JP-24: The proposed edits are already in F03 (at 166:6-7) so defeat of this interpretation would be unfortunate (also true of 000103). F03/0003, 0004 & 0016: The three items each propose a new constraint C1224a. Presumably that for 0003 is overridden by 0004 but it is not clear, if they pass, whether those for 0004 and 0016 should be combined or remain separate. David