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

[Malcolm Cohen]

The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No   Number     Title

-Y-  ---  F95/0098   Are dummy functions returning assumed-length
                            character legal?
-C-  ---  F03/0022   Coexistence of IEEE and non-IEEE kinds
-Y-  ---  F03/0024   DEALLOCATE and array pointers
-Y-  ---  F03/0034   IEEE_LOGB()
-C-  ---  F03/0039   HYPOT()
-Y-  ---  F03/0078   IEEE_SUPPORT_DATATYPE vs. mathematical equivalence
-Y-  ---  F03/0090   Polymorphic array constructors
-Y-  ---  F03/0130   Elemental specific intrinsic procedure
                            characteristics
-Y-  ---  F03/0131   SAVE attribute and EQUIVALENCE
-Y-  ---  F03/0132   Unformatted i/o and private components
-Y-  ---  F03/0133   Is unlimited polymorphic allowed in COMMON?
-Y-  ---  F03/0134   Implicit typing of procedure pointers
-Y-  ---  F03/0135   Interaction between RESULT, recursion, and host
                            generic
-C-  ---  F03/0136   Are subroutines distinguishable from arrays?
-Y-  ---  F03/0137   Dummy procedure type compatibility
-Y-  ---  F03/0138   External <procedure-name> as <proc-target>

F03/0022 COMMENT:
The requirement that this deletes was not "unintentional", it was deliberately 
added by at least some of the people involved in the IEEE TR process, and I am 
sure it was debated at least once in J3 plenary.  In hindsight we have come to 
believe it was a mistake, but that's a horse of a different colour.  Rather than 
say "The requirement ... was mistaken", I'd prefer us to say "It was a mistake 
to require ...".

F03/0039 COMMENT:
HYPOT is just a simple (too simple!) example that has no actual connection to 
any C procedure, Fortran intrinsic procedure, or procedure in a standard that is 
not what we call "the IEEE International Standard".  Whether it might have a 
similar name and/or similar behaviour to such a procedure that it has no 
connection with is an interesting philosophical point, discussion of which is 
unnecessary and inappropriate in the Fortran standard.

In fact, the IEEE standard we connect to has no HYPOT function so claims that it 
"contradict[s]" the IEEE standard are somewhat wide of the mark.  As for "the 
values we require", we don't require anything, John just wrote a little example. 
That's it.  It's in a note (not normative text) so cannot in any case require 
anything, let alone conformance or contradiction with an IEEE standard that did 
not exist at the time of writing and that has no connection with the current 
standard (and will not have with the next one either).

F03/0136 COMMENT:
The first line of the DISCUSSION ought to say 2008 not 2003.
I agree APRINT should have had an argument N.

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