(j3.2006) UTI 076 and UTI 192

Aleksandar Donev donev1
Wed Jan 31 19:08:09 EST 2007

On Wednesday 31 January 2007 13:25, Van Snyder wrote:

> While reviewing Clause 16, I found UTI 076 and UTI 192.  I didn't do
> anything about either one, because I don't know what to do about either
> one.  I could guess, but why write a paper that won't even get a second?
> I hope somebody who knows what is wanted in these two areas will write
> something.
I also don't have the will or time to write papers that might not even get 
considered. I asked on this list some time ago about the idea of saying C_PTR 
has a pointer component. That seemed to be somewhat controversial. We could 
instead say that C_PTR acts *as if* it has a pointer component. We already do 
this in the description of C_LOC:

"If X is a scalar data entity, the result is determined as if C_PTR were a 
derived type containing a scalar pointer component PX of the type and type 
parameters of X and the pointer assignment CPTR%PX => X were executed."

A similar wording could be used for definition/undefinition: It follows that 
of the ficticious pointer CPTR%PX.

In fact I think this will altogether give a more coherent description to the 
types C_PTR and C_FUNPTR, as their behavior would be evident from knowing how 
normal Fortran pointers behave.

If this sounds like a big change, the UTI can trivially be addressed by, as 
Malcolm says, simply cutting and pasting with minor changes stuff from 
"events that cause pointers to go undefined".


More information about the J3 mailing list