From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Thu Feb 23 11:08:05 1995 Received: from ns.dknet.dk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA00818 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:27:25 +0100 Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by ns.dknet.dk with SMTP id AA09725 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for ); Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:27:21 +0100 Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP; Thu, 23 Feb 95 11:07:47 GMT Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) id ; Thu, 23 Feb 1995 11:06:38 +0000 Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA06757; Thu, 23 Feb 95 11:08:05 GMT Date: Thu, 23 Feb 95 11:08:05 GMT From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid) Message-Id: <9502231108.AA06757@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk> To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.686) X3J3 letter ballot for 006 items X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Following an email discussion with Rich Bleikamp, I want to change my "vote". John. Yes without comments on all items except for the following: 173 N Reid This is very closely related to 12.5.2.9 and yet the proposed edit uses a quite different form of words. For example: [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. Use of the term "storage association" is misleading to the reader since it suggests common and equivalence, but this problem may occur through pointer or argument association. Really what we need to say is that the rules of 12.5.2.9 are applicable, except that FROM and TO of MVBITS are permitted to be the same. Also the edit should be expressed in the singular and has other editorial defects. Here is a suggested replacement edit: EDIT: Add the following sentence to the end of section 13.2.2 [183:35]: In a reference to the intrinsic subroutine MVBITS, the actual arguments corresponding to the TO and FROM dummy arguments may be the same variable. Apart from this, the actual arguments in a reference to an intrinsic subroutine must satisfy the restrictions of 12.5.2.9. 198 N Reid The wording of the edit is clumsy. I suggest: EDIT: Section 12.4.1.2 [173:35-36] replace the second paragraph by: "If the interface of the dummy procedure is explicit, the characteristics listed in 12.2 of the associated actual procedure must be the same as the corresponding characteristics of the dummy procedure."