(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4530) Second ballot on interpretations
Van Snyder
Van.Snyder
Wed Sep 21 16:17:37 EDT 2011
I at first (9 Sept) sent this to the J3 list by mistake.
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