From J.L.Schonfelder@liverpool.ac.uk Fri Feb 17 14:03:09 1995 Received: from mailhub.liverpool.ac.uk (mail.liv.ac.uk) by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA15591 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Fri, 17 Feb 1995 15:03:55 +0100 Received: from pop.liv.ac.uk by mail.liv.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:03:13 +0000 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 1995 14:03:09 GMT From: Lawrie Schonfelder Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.715) defect item 173 To: John Reid Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Message-Id: Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Let me add a little moral support to John. In principle, two objects that are associated by pointer association and even where the targets involve overlapping storage are NOT storage associated. "Storage association" has a very precise technical meaning in Fortran. It means being associated by being part of storage sequences that are associated by COMMON, EQUIVALENCE or via argument association involving storage sequences e.g. assumed size arrays. The pointer-target association and the actual-dummy argument association do not in principle imply storage association. An implementation may employ aliaising of identical or overlapping storage to achieve the effect of the association but it does not have to. I think John's reading of the book and the corrigendum is right. On Fri, 17 Feb 95 11:05:57 GMT John Reid wrote: > From: John Reid > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 95 11:05:57 GMT > Subject: (SC22WG5.715) defect item 173 > To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk > > > How can I let this drop when I have the combined forces of the two Riches and > Janice ranged against me? > > Let me try another tack. This is very closely related to 12.5.2.9. Indeed, > it might be argued that in view of 12.5.2.9, no edit is needed. The > wording there [180:3-4] is: > > [180:3-4] No action may be taken that affects the value or availability of the > entity or any part of it, except through the dummy argument. > > [180:36-38] Note that if there is a partial or complete overlap between > the actual arguments associated with two different dummy arguments of > the same procedure, the overlapped portions must not be defined, > redefined, or become undefined during the execution of the > procedure. > > Surely, it would help the reader to use the same form of words for the > new text. > > Incidently, I looked in 1539 for any use of the term "storage association" > for arrays with a partial overlap. I could not find one. Can you? > > Best wishes, > JOhn. -- Dr.J.L.Schonfelder Director, Computing Services Dept. The University of Liverpool, UK e-mail J.L.Schonfelder@liv.ac.uk phone: +44(51)794-3716 fax: +44(51)794-3759