(j3.2006) [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.5023) J3/13-xxx interp letter ballot #29 afterm201 - due 9-Aug-2013

[Malcolm Cohen]

>The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:
>
>Yes  No   Number     Title
>
>-C-  ---  F08/0091   Derived type with no components
>-C-  ---  F08/0092   Derived type parameter requirements
>-C-  ---  F08/0093   Process exit status and error termination
>-Y-  ---  F08/0094   Procedure statement and double colon
>-Y-  ---  F08/0095   Is PRESENT allowed in specification and constant
>                               expressions
>-Y-  ---  F08/0096   Is VALUE permitted for an array in a BIND(C)
>                               procedure?
>-Y-  ---  F08/0097   Is the optional comma allowed in
>                               TYPE(CHARACTER*...)?
>-Y-  ---  F08/0098   How many ACQUIRED_LOCK= specifiers are allowed in a
>                                LOCK stmt?

COMMAND on F08/0091:
  Agree with Bill Long re swapping x and y in m7_1 and m7_2.

  Instead of adding a new constraint, it might be better just to add the 
condition to the existing constraint, i.e.
    [62:19] After "appears," insert "the type shall have at least one 
component,".

COMMENT on F08/0092:
  Agree with Van Snyder and Bill Long re "be" and "64:9"->"64:8".

  I don't think "given" is really necessary: we do not consistently use "given" 
in other similar constraints.

COMMENT on F08/0093:
  Agree with Bill Long re insertion of a cross-reference.

  This interp does not modify our recommendation of zero, nor do I think it is 
necessary to modify it.  Unlike the situation for exit(0) in C99, this is only a 
recommendation, not a requirement.

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