(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5023) J3/13-xxx interp letter ballot #29 after m201 - due 9-Aug-2013

[Malcolm Cohen]

On Thu, 2013-08-08 at 01:43 -0700, Robert Corbett wrote:
> F08/0095 C
>
> The edits are fine as far as they go.  However, the intrinsic
> functions ALLOCATED and ASSOCIATED present problems similar to
> those of PRESENT.  Those problems should also be addressed.

I see no problem.  The properties being tested by ALLOCATED and ASSOCIATED are 
clearly "deferred": just like the shape of an allocatable array, whether it is 
allocated or not is determined by execution of ALLOCATE (and DEALLOCATE) 
statements etc.  Clarifying this would be an editorial improvement: we don't 
need to wheel out the big guns of interpretation.

>should we withdraw 0095

That would be an overreaction.  0095 is fixing stuff that is actually ambiguous 
or wrong.  Improving the exposition w.r.t. ALLOCATED and ASSOCIATED is a good 
idea, but does not warrant leaving PRESENT actually broken for 6-12 months.

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