(j3.2006) J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #22 - due 19-Nov-2010
Sun Oct 17 22:36:22 EDT 2010
Van Snyder wrote:
> --- -N- F03/0124 definition is poorly defined
> The answer implied by the edits is too restrictive.
The answer is less restrictive than the text currently in the standard, in that
it adds another exception to the blanket requirement.
> It should
> be something like
> "When a component of a structure of numeric sequence type or
> character sequence type becomes defined as a result of
> partially associated objects becoming defined, associated
> components of the same type that are components of an object
> of different type do not become undefined." (This is ugly and
> will need some polishing, but you get the idea.)
It would help if you supplied an example you think remains non-conforming after
this change but that you think should be conforming. Reading your proposed
replacement text I am at a loss to see how the effect of it differs from that in
the interp. (If there is a difference, I'm sure I could work it out eventually,
but you must have something in mind already, right?)
................................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.
More information about the J3