From janshep@watson.ibm.com Fri Dec 22 16:27:24 1995 Received: from watson.ibm.com (watson.ibm.com [129.34.139.4]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id QAA01223 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 1995 16:27:22 +0100 Message-Id: <199512221527.QAA01223@dkuug.dk> Received: from YKTVMV by watson.ibm.com (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 6121; Thu, 21 Dec 95 13:15:48 EST Date: Thu, 21 Dec 95 13:11:13 EST From: "Janice C. Shepherd ((914) 784-6313)" X-Addr: J1-K10, Hawthorne 2 tieline 863 To: sc22wg5@dkuug.dk Subject: 006 ballot Here is Henry's and my ballot (only one vote, but comments from both of us) on the X3J3 006/F95 edits ballot. Janice ----------------------------- Y|wc N 95-006 Item or Fortran 95 edit |_|X| |_| 000027 Requirements for pointer and target association |_|X| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 27 |_|X| |_| 000081 Pointer actual argument overlap |X|_| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 81 |X|_| |_| 000100 ASSOCIATED intrinsic and zero-sized objects |X|_| |_| 000125 Copy in/copy out of target dummy arguments |_|X| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 125 |_|X| |_| 000145 Expressions in of a FUNCTION statement |X|_| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 145 |X|_| |_| 000148 RANDOM_SEED, RANDOM_NUMBER |X|_| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 148 |X|_| |_| 000154 EQUIVALENCE and zero-sized sequences |_|X| |_| 000155 Multiple USE statements, rename and only lists. |X|_| |_| 000176 Definition of RANDOM_SEED |_|X| |_| 000179 DO variable with POINTER attribute |X|_| |_| 000183 Unambiguous procedure overloading |X|_| |_| 000185 What is the allocation status of an array after an allocation failure? |_|X| |_| 000187 TARGET attribute, storage association, and pointer ass. |_|X| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 187 |X|_| |_| 000194 Statements between SELECT CASE and CASE |X|_| |_| 000196 Inaccessibility of intrinsic procedures |X|_| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 196 |X|_| |_| 000201 SELECTED_REAL_KIND result |X|_| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 201 |X|_| |_| 000203 Scope of operator/assignment symbols |X|_| |_| Fortran 95 edits listed for defect item 203 27 Y Shepherd The first sentence of the answer needs to be changed to reflect the sense of the edits: "The conditions d), e), g), h), i) and j) are sufficient for ASSOCIATED (PTR, TGT) to return a value of .FALSE.. The conditions a), b), c) and d) are such that if any are true, ASSOCIATED (PTR, TGT) is an invalid reference." Shouldn't "zero sized storage sequences" be "zero-sized storage sequences"? Given Henry's observations, the example and the paragraph introducing the example should both be deleted from the discussion. The rest of the text is sufficient. 27 Zongaro The example program unit in the discussion shows a COMMON block in which a target of type real becomes associated with a target of type complex. Defect item 000160 asked the question "Was it the intent of the committee to allow the storage association of target variables with nontarget variables and variables of different data types?". The states in part, "No, this was not the intent of the standard." My interpretation of this response was that neither was it the intent of the standard that nontarget variables should be storage associated with target variables, nor was it the intent of the standard that target variables of different types should be storage associated. However, the discussion of 000160 does not make it clear whether my interpretation was the intended interpretation, since it only discusses the issue of storage association between target variables and nontarget variables. If my understanding is correct, the common declarations in the example are incorrect. F95 edits per 27, in cases (ii) and (iii), the last word in each should be in lower case. ie "false" not "FALSE" 81 Y Shepherd The instructions for the last edit should be "In section C.12.7, [291:38-42] replace the existing paragraph with :" In the first edit, in item (c) add a "," ahead of the "and" In the sixth edit, in item (c) add a "," ahead of the "and" In the 4th edit change "nor the TARGET" to "nor TARGET" to be consistent with the style in F95. F95 edits per 125, I (Shepherd) think the wording in the 3rd line of the defect's 3rd edit "is either scalar or is an assumed-shape array," is better than the wording in 95-007r2 pg 336:32 which is "is scalar or assumed-shape". Thus I would add a new edit to the list of F95 edits: 336:32 section C.9.5, change "is scalar or assumed-shape" to "is either scalar or is an assumed-shape array" 145 Y Shepherd, The wording in F95 is better for the first edit. Change the "to" part of the first edit to be "in an interface body (12.3.2.1), the specification part of a subprogram, or the of a FUNCTION statement (12.5.2.2)" Given Henry's observations the following changes should be made to the discussion: Replace the paragraph after "* Structure constructor" with "The text from section 7.1.6.1, in (3) of the definition of initialization expression, indicates that a structure constructor where each component is an initialization expression can appear in an initialization expression. The referenced type must already be defined (4.4.4). Therefore for a structure constructor to appear in an initialization expression in the of a FUNCTION statement, the type definition must either be accessible by host association or by use association." Replace the paragraph "A structure constructor can not appear in a FUNCTION ..." with "A structure constructor can appear in a FUNCTION providing the resulting expression is of type integer and the referenced type is already defined (thus it must be accessible by host or use association within the function)." /interp (or some other subgroup) should then decide if wording in 4.4.4 in Fortran 95 should be clarified via an Fortran 95 interpretation. 145 Zongaro The discussion under "* Structure constructor" makes the claim that structure constructors can not appear in a . Later in the discussion, it is stated that structure constructors can not appear in specification expressions in FUNCTION s. Both of these statements are incorrect. For example, I believe the following is valid PROGRAM P TYPE DT INTEGER I END TYPE DT CONTAINS CHARACTER(LEN=SIZE((/DT(1)/)), & & KIND=KIND(SIZE((/DT(1)/)))) FUNCTION F() F = 'X' END FUNCTION F END PROGRAM P assuming that the processor has a character kind type parameter whose value is equal to the kind type parameter of the default integer type. Should the text in 4.4.4 which states "A structure constructor must not appear before the referenced type is defined." be modified to handle use association? 155 Y Zongaro In the discussion, change "(e.g." to "(e.g.,". 179 Y Zongaro In the discussion, before the line "PRT = 10", change "had contained" to "had contained within the DO construct". In the line after "PRT = 10", change "such as assignment" to "such an assignment". 187 Y Shepherd Given the wording in defect 160, I agree with Henry that the edit should be changed to his proposed wording. A similar change should be made to F95; see below. 187 Y Zongaro Referring to the comments on defect item 27, above, should the second edit be changed to the following? "An object with the TARGET attribute must become storage associated only with another object that has the TARGET attribute and the same type and type parameters." F95 edits per 187 Make the same change as per the 2nd edit of 187. The text of the 2nd edit was already part of F95. (Using 95-007r2 page/line numbers) Section 5.5.2.3 [70:23], change "attribute." to "attribute and the same type and type parameters."