From hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu Fri Oct 6 19:06:30 1995 Received: from newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu (newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.2.2]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id TAA15606 for ; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 19:05:13 +0100 Received: from landrew.ncsa.uiuc.edu (landrew.ncsa.uiuc.edu [141.142.4.4]) by newton.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.6.11/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA11621; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:04:16 -0500 Received: (from hirchert@localhost) by landrew.ncsa.uiuc.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) id NAA19297; Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:04:13 -0500 Message-Id: <199510061804.NAA19297@landrew.ncsa.uiuc.edu> From: hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Kurt W. Hirchert) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 1995 13:04:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: "Janice C. Shepherd ((914) 784-6313)"'s message of Sep 7, 13:48 X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: "Janice C. Shepherd ((914) 784-6313)" , sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.854) 006 ballot slight revision 000081 N Hirchert The Zongaro comments lead me to believe that this item has become intertwined with the 000125 fiasco. 000125 N Hirchert This appears to be somewhat better technically than what we passed before, but its editorial implications appear even more disastrous -- the fact that TARGET dummy arguments sometimes pass identity and sometimes only value makes descriptions of restrictions, behavior, etc. hopelessly unreadable. I still maintain that the correct answer to 000125 should be that identity is transferred only for POINTER dummy arguments. (For convenience, it should be possible to associate TARGET actual arguments with POINTER dummy arguments, just as one can associate constant actual arguments with "variable" dummy arguments.) 000179 Y Hirchert I believe we want to apply these edits, but not for the reasons in Larry's question. It would be nice if the answer indicated that there are more serious problems than the ones Larry points out. 000202 N Hirchert The key to this answer should be that INT(A+0.5) is intended as mathematical description of the rounding intended (i.e., that for example, one must round 1.5 up to 2 and not down to 1), but that it is not a prescription of the specific method by which this mathematical value is to be obtain or approximated. I believe that this key point is not made clear by this wording of the answer. All others Y without any additional comment from me. -- Kurt W. Hirchert hirchert@ncsa.uiuc.edu National Center for Supercomputing Applications