(j3.2006) Interp F03/0091
Thu May 17 18:46:38 EDT 2007
>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 220.127.116.11) 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 18.104.22.168.1 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.
More information about the J3