(j3.2006) Do we care that we say this twice?

[Malcolm Cohen]

Van Snyder wrote:
> C553 [09-007:99:2] says "An entity with the SAVE attribute shall be a
> common block, variable or procedure pointer."
>
> C539 [09-007:95:9] says "An entity with the INTENT attribute shall be a
> dummy data object or a dummy procedure pointer."
>
> C1218 [09-007:291:24-25] says "If a procedure entity has the INTENT or
> SAVE attribute, it shall also have the POINTER attribute."
>
> So C1218 duplicates C553 and C539.  Do we want to say this twice?
>   
I think we ought not to say this twice.  C1218 is (obviously?) a poor 
place to put a restriction on INTENT and SAVE.

I feel sort-of disinclined to just up and delete the constraint by 
myself editorially though, so please bring a paper to the May meeting.  
(Looked at in isolation, it does seem sort-of obviously totally 
redundant, but...)
> BTW, C539 has a link to the definition of "dummy data object" in
> 1.3.45.1, but there is no link to a definition of "dummy procedure
> pointer," because there isn't one.  Do we need one?
Why should we need one?  We already have "dummy procedure" and "pointer" 
(and "procedure pointer" as well for good measure, as a subterm of 
"pointer").  It seems easy enough to understand "dummy procedure 
pointer" as being a "dummy procedure" that is a "pointer".

I could hyperlink "dummy procedure" and "pointer" (in "dummy procedure 
pointer") to the relevant terms if you think it useful.

Actually I think we have slightly too many terms as it is, some of them 
are too obvious...

Cheers,
-- 
...........................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.