(j3.2006) Interp F03/0091

[Michael Ingrassia]

>It would make most sense for every array 
>to be one of explicit-shape, assumed-size or assumed-shape

But one can't argue from logic; the standard has actual words and
statements that have to be interpreted.  

For example, it would make sense to
me for every array to be a data object. 
But I guess I am refuted 
as a data component is part of a type definition, not part of an object 
declaration, so if data
components can be arrays (as stated in 4.5.3.1) then 
not every array is a data object.

In a published standard I think ideally 
technical terms have to be defined and all
usage of the technical terms has to be strictly in accord with the 
definition.  It sounds like we may have work to do with the terms
array and explicit-shape array.

I suppose we could first interpret 5.1.2.5.1 to make it very clearly
speak nonsense, and then re-interpret the nonsense to make sense on the
grounds that we couldn't have meant to be nonsensical.  
But that seems like the long way around, and methodologically suspect.

 
	--Michael I.