(j3.2006) J3/09-292 - J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #19 - due19-Oct-2009
Sun Oct 18 22:01:42 EDT 2009
The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:
Yes No Number Title
-Y- --- F95/0098 Are dummy functions returning assumed-length
-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
-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
-C- --- F03/0136 Are subroutines distinguishable from arrays?
-Y- --- F03/0137 Dummy procedure type compatibility
-Y- --- F03/0138 External <procedure-name> as <proc-target>
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 ...".
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).
The first line of the DISCUSSION ought to say 2008 not 2003.
I agree APRINT should have had an argument N.
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
More information about the J3