(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.4532) Interpretation ballot N1875/1876

Malcolm Cohen malcolm
Wed Sep 21 21:09:31 EDT 2011

Yes  No Number     Title
-C- --- F03/0030   IEEE divide by zero
-Y- --- F03/0048   Control edit descriptors in UDDTIO
-Y- --- F03/0085   Finalizing targets of pointer or allocatable
-Y- --- F03/0091   Array components cannot depend on length type parameters
-C- --- F03/0096   Can a read statement change the unit value?
-Y- --- F03/0105   SIZE= specifier and UDDTIO
-Y- --- F03/0110   Restoring dropped restriction on ENTRY
-Y- --- F03/0121   Precise FP semantics of the REAL intrinsic
-Y- --- F03/0123   Implicit typing in derived types
-Y- --- F03/0124   definition is poorly defined
-Y- --- F03/0128   Subobjects in namelist output
-Y- --- F08/0001   Generic resolution with pointer dummy arguments
-Y- --- F08/0002   Are assumed- or deferred-shape objects allowed in namelist?
-Y- --- F08/0003   Is a disassociated pointer allowed as an actual DIM
-Y- --- F08/0004   Is TARGET argument of ASSOCIATED a pointer or nonpointer
        F08/0005*  optional arguments and ASSOCIATED - subsumed by F08/0004
-Y- --- F08/0006   generic resolution with banned argument combinations
-Y- --- F08/0007   Can zero have more than one bit sequence representation?
--- -N- F08/0008   IEEE exceptions for intrinsic functions
-Y- --- F08/0009   Is ABS ever required to be the optional IEC 60559 abs?
-C- --- F08/0010   deallocating objects that are associated with other objects
-Y- --- F08/0011   How many times are constructed values finalized?
        F08/0012*  Are constants finalized? - subsumed by F08/0011
-Y- --- F08/0013   How does finalization interact with allocatable assignment?
-C- --- F08/0014   Finalizing assignment to vector-subscripted object
-Y- --- F08/0015   IMPLICIT
-Y- --- F08/0016   Can a vector-subscripted argument become undefined?
-Y- --- F08/0017   Elemental subroutine restrictions
-Y- --- F08/0018   Impure elemental restrictions
-Y- --- F08/0019   Transformational Bessel functions
-Y- --- F08/0020   FINDLOC and logical arguments

* F08/0005 is subsumed by F08/0004 and F08/0012 is subsumed by F08/0011.

F03/0030 COMMENT:
Van's comment on 13.7.1 also being wrong is well taken, but refers to an issue 
that is separate from that considered by the interpretation.  In my opinion 
13.7.1 should be fixed in a separate interp, e.g. F08/0008 which actually does 
ask about intrinsic functions.

F03/0096 COMMENT:
I agree that adding "in the same statement" to the end of the sentence in the 
second edit would be an improvement.  I do not agree with the comments about 
SIZE=; both it and the input-items depend on the input file contents, but I 
don't see how it depends on the input-items directly.

F08/0008 NO VOTE:
The quoted text in 13.7.1 is just wrong and needs to be fixed.

F08/0010 COMMENT:
Van's assertion that the "argument" parts of the edits is covered by is mistaken - does not cover the case of a 
subobject of an allocatable being argument associated, and (3) does not cover 
the case when the object has the TARGET attribute (that is explicitly excluded). 
Deleting those parts would change my vote to NO.  (There is some scope for 
wordsmithing to avoid precisely the cases that can be proven by theorem to be 
covered by various existing bits of, but in my view this would make 
the edits more complicated to no good purpose, so I would probably still want to 
vote NO if such changes were made.)

F08/0014 COMMENT:
Bill raises 3 possible "options" of the interpretation: (1) and (3) are 
equivalent (they both avoid doing the thing that is forbidden, who cares HOW the 
user avoids breaking the rule!) and (2) is contradicted by the existing text in 
the standard, so I see no quandary.

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

More information about the J3 mailing list