(j3.2006) J3/09-292 - J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #19-due19-Oct-2009

[john.reid at stfc.ac.uk]

Malcolm,

Thanks for the response. I will not put in a vote. 

On another matter, did you get my message re OUP? What do you think about the timing for writing the new edition of our book?

Cheers,

John. 


-----Original Message-----
From: j3-bounces at j3-fortran.org on behalf of Malcolm Cohen
Sent: Mon 10/5/2009 6:22 AM
To: fortran standards email list for J3
Subject: Re: (j3.2006) J3/09-292 - J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #19-due19-Oct-2009
 
John Reid wrote:
> Before I put in a vote, does anyone else have problems with the edit for 
> F03/0132?

Not really.

> The proposed new paragraph for [193:13-15] reads
>
>  "If a derived-type list item is not processed by a user-defined derived-type 
> input/output procedure and is not treated as a list of its individual 
> components, all the subcomponents of that list item shall be accessible in the 
> scoping unit containing the input/output statement and shall not be pointers 
> or allocatable".
>
> At first I thought that the if clause was wrong,

Then you must have problems with the original wording, no?  The new paragraph 
very closely follows the original wording, if anything it is simpler by having 
both halves of the condition at the beginning instead of half at the beginning 
and half at the end.

> but then realized that it was talking about unformatted i/o, see [193:6-8].

i.e. it is unchanged (other than using less confusing wording! and correct 
requirements!) from the original.

> Would this not be a better wording for the if clause:
>
>  "If a derived-type list item in an unformatted input/output statement is 
> treated as a single value,"

No.  A derived-type list item that is processed by a user-defined derived-type 
input/output procedure is being "treated as a single value", in particular, it 
is being treated as a single value that is passed to the UDDTIO procedure.

I sympathise with the desire to wordsmith the paragraph, but ... looking at the 
proposed edit for F03/0132 it must be clear that it is retaining the original 
condition (merely joining the two halves) and thus only changing the concomitant 
requirements.  I think that makes it easier to be confident that we are not 
making some inadvertant change, and that is important for an interp edit.

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


_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at j3-fortran.org
http://j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3


-- 
Scanned by iCritical.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 4109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20091005/f7cbe096/attachment.bin>