(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4522) Second WG5 ballot on interpretations

Van Snyder Van.Snyder
Fri Sep 9 20:15:30 EDT 2011


On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 02:11 -0700, John Reid wrote:
> WG5,
> 
> Here is the ballot on the second half of the interpretations that are ready. 
> This will end at 0900 UK time on Wednesday, 5 October. May I remind you that the 
> first ballot (N1876) will end at 0900 UK time on Thursday, 22 September?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John.
> 
The following Fortran 2003 interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No Number     Title
-Y- --- F08/0021   STORAGE_SIZE and unlimited polymorphic
-Y- --- F08/0022   DO CONCURRENT and file i/o
-Y- --- F08/0023   DO CONCURRENT and POINTER
-Y- --- F08/0024   Dummy arguments of impure elemental procedures
-Y- --- F08/0025   DO CONCURRENT and ALLOCATABLE
-Y- --- F08/0026   DO CONCURRENT and output interleaving
-Y- --- F08/0027   ATOMIC_REF example
-Y- --- F08/0028   Does a procedure reference cause loop termination?
-Y- --- F08/0029   G0 edit descriptor and floating-point output
-Y- --- F08/0030   Unlimited format repeat effects
--- -N- F08/0031   PURE INTENT(OUT) finalization
        If a procedure has a polymorphic intent(out) dummy argument, the
        processor can't know if an impure final procedure would be
        invoked.  Therefore, the specified new constraint (C1277a) can't
        be a constraint.  My answer would be yes if F08/0033 passes.
-Y- --- F08/0032   PURE FUNCTION result finalization
-Y- --- F08/0033   PURE polymorphic finalization
-Y- --- F08/0034   ELEMENTAL INTENT(OUT) finalization
-Y- --- F08/0035   Maximum value for SHIFT argument to SHIFTL
                   and SHIFTR
-Y- --- F08/0036   NORM2 example in Annex C
-Y- --- F08/0037   PROCEDURE POINTER vs PROTECTED
-Y- --- F08/0038   Are pointless restrictions on DIM arguments
                   intended?
-Y- --- F08/0039   Many-one vector subscript usage
--- -N- F08/0040   MOVE_ALLOC for coarrays
        We agreed that MOVE_ALLOC is useful, else we wouldn't have added
        it.  I prefer that a call to it be an image-control statement.
--- -N- F08/0042   SOURCE= questions
        The revised C633 allows the possibility that an
        <allocate-object> that is an array can be allocated without an
        <allocate-shape-spec-list> and a scalar <source-expr>.  My vote
        would be yes if there were an additional sentence something like
        "If <allocate-shape-spec-list> does not appear, <source-expr>
        shall not be a scalar."
-Y- --- F08/0043   Executing a type-bound procedure on a coindexed
                   object
-Y- --- F08/0044   Resolving the type of a coarray or coindexed object
-Y- --- F08/0046   VALUE attribute restrictions
-Y- --- F08/0047   public generic with same name as private type
-Y- --- F08/0049   ELEMENTAL functions with nonconstant type parameters
-Y- --- F08/0050   Ordering requirements on definition of specification
                   functions
-Y- --- F08/0051   Pure procedure arguments with VALUE
-Y- --- F08/0052   Private type-bound procedures
-C- --- F08/0053   Restrictions on generic declarations, generic
                   resolution
        The word "nvocation" in Question (2) should be "invocation".
-Y- --- F08/0054   Requirements for needing an explicit interface





More information about the J3 mailing list