(j3.2006) FW: 11-229 J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #24 - due 19-Aug-2011 - 2nd try

[Malcolm Cohen]

Yes  No   Number     Title

 

-Y-  ---  F03/0017   Dummy procedure pointers and PRESENT

-C-  ---  F03/0018   Multiple identical specific procedures in

                      type-bound generic

-Y-  ---  F03/0019   Multiple identical specific procedures in

                      generic interface blocks

-Y-  ---  F03/0021   What kind of token is a stop code?

-Y-  ---  F03/0046   Unlimited polymorphic pointers in common blocks

-N-  ---  F03/0053   The BIND attribute for C_PTR and C_FUNPTR

-Y-  ---  F03/0065   Relational equivalence

-Y-  ---  F03/0084   IEEE_SET_ROUNDING_MODE in a subroutine

-Y-  ---  F03/0103   Restrictions on dummy arguments not present for

                      polymorphic type or parameterized derived type

-Y-  ---  F03/0116   indistinguishable specifics for a generic

                      interface with use association

-C-  ---  F03/0118   Are lower bounds of assumed-shape arrays assumed?

-N-  ---  F03/0120   When are parameterized sequence types the same type?

-N-  ---  F08/0055   G editing for reals

-Y-  ---  F08/0056   Non-polymorphic ALLOCATE with polymorphic SOURCE=

-Y-  ---  F08/0057   Interoperability with empty types

-Y-  ---  F08/0058   ENTRY point RESULT variable

-Y-  ---  F08/0059   Auto-targetting requirements

-C-  ---  F08/0060   Procedure pointer assignment with an EXTERNAL target

-Y-  ---  F08/0061   Description of the CONTIGUOUS attribute misworded?

-Y-  ---  F08/0062   Mixing default initialization with DATA

                      initialization

 

COMMENT for F03/0018



The various comments about ?they aren?t different procedures but the same routine? are missing the point: they are different type-bound procedures.  Type-bound generics are collections of type-bound procedures, *****NOT***** collections of specific routines that are associated with those type-bound procedures.  The whole thing DOES NOT WORK if you try to make the generic tbp into a collection of specific ?actual procedures? instead of ?type-bound procedures?, since a single type-bound procedure is often associated with multiple ?actual routines? that would be ambiguous as a generic.



See 4.5.5p3.



I am sure various wordings could be improved in various places, but any time generics get involved things get complicated... I don?t think we should attempt wordsmithing improvements via interp though.



NO VOTE on F03/0053



Missing edit to correct the definition of ?extensible type? (as it stands the interp creates a contradiction); a concise replacement would be

  ?type that may be extended using the EXTENDS clause (4.5.7.1)?

this leaves the requirements for being permitted to use EXTENDS up to 4.5.7.1 instead of stating it redundantly.



COMMENT for F03/0118



I agree with Jim Xia?s comment about the incorrect reference.



NO VOTEfor F03/0120



All the type parameters should be declared as LEN type parameters.

In the final example X should be declared as T1(N) and Y should be declared as T2(N).



In the edit, ?derived-type? should not be hyphenated.



I think there needs to be an edit to list this as an incompatibility with F2003, unless we think the definition was so hopelessly broken that none of it worked.  That is not obvious.  (If we?d gotten around to this interp before F2008 was published we might not have needed such an edit.)



NO VOTE for F08/0055



The decimal exponent needs to be explained, e.g. as being the decimal exponent that corresponds to a mantissa in the range [0.1,1) but not using maths notation.



COMMENT for F08/0060



In the discussion, after ?Interp F03/0138? insert ?to Fortran 2003?

and after ?WG5? insert ?for the unofficial Technical Corrigendum 5?.



Cheers,


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20110819/3c63e131/attachment.html>