(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.3688) Ballot on the technical content of the TR

Van Snyder van.snyder
Sat Dec 6 18:08:07 EST 2008


My vote is "Yes with comments."

A C descriptor has a flag that indicates whether a pointer is or is not 
associated.  It's not always possible to tell.  It is always possible to 
tell whether a pointer is or is not disassociated.

Whenever "type" is used it should be clear whether it's C type or 
Fortran type.  It's not explicit, and therefore not clear, in a few places.

The "sm" component of a CFI_dim_t struct is specified to be measured in 
bytes.  This should be in processor-dependent units.

In the fourth paragraph of the "Assumed-shape, ..." section, shouldn't 
it be possible to deallocate a pointer object?

Van Snyder

John Reid wrote:
>                                          ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1763
>
>            WG5 letter ballot 5 on technical content of N1761
>
>                       John Reid, 26 November 2008
>
> This is the letter ballot that WG5 agreed to hold in view of there being
> insufficient time in Tokyo to discuss the technical content of the TR on
> "Further Interoperability of Fortran with C".
>
> Please answer the following question "Do you approve of the technical
> content of N1761?" in one or more of these ways (it is acceptable to choose
> both 2 and 3).
>
> 1) Yes.
> 2) Yes, with comments.
> 3) Yes, except with OPTIONAL dummy arguments in interoperable interfaces
>     removed, with comments.
> 4) No, with comments (comments required).
> 5) Abstain.
>
> Please send your vote to sc22wg5 at open-std.org to arrive by 9 a.m. (UK time)
> on January 5th 2009 (my first working day of the New Year).
>
> Note that the contents of N1763 are identical with those of 08-305 except
> that line 122 of 08-305 is changed from
>
>      "the argument of the C_LOC intrinsic function in the ISO_C_BINDING"
> to
>      "the argument of the C_LOC function in the ISO_C_BINDING intrinsic"
>   




More information about the J3 mailing list