(j3.2006) UTI 076 and UTI 192

[Aleksandar Donev]

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".

Best,
Aleks