(j3.2006) J3 interp letter ballot #23 due 25-Mar-2011

[Jim Xia]

The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No   Number     Title


-C-  ---  F03/0124   Definition is poorly defined
---  -N-  F08/0050   Ordering requirements on definition of
                      specification functions
-Y-  ---  F08/0051   Pure procedure arguments with VALUE
---  -N-  F08/0052   Private type-bound procedures
-Y-  ---  F08/0053   Restrictions on generic declarations, generic
                      resolution
-Y-  ---  F08/0054   Requirements for needing an explicit interface

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on F03/0124
In example3, the derived types, t1 and t2, should be both sequence types.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on F08/0050
I don't see how the new paragraphs make improvements.  The listed example
is already prohibited by the two paragraphs being replaced.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments on F08/0052
This is an incompatible change from F03.  It is clear from F03 the 
overriding
rules apply to the same binding name regarless its accessibility. Compiler
has put extra work in supporting this.

I would change my vote to yes if edits are added to Clause 1.6.2 
indicating
this as an incompatible change from F03.
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Jim Xia

Compiler Testing, X10 & XLF
IBM Toronto Lab at 8200 Warden Ave,
Markham, On, L6G 1C7
905-413-3444
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://j3-fortran.org/pipermail/j3/attachments/20110325/58d327d3/attachment-0001.html>