(j3.2006) US-01, US-03, US-08. US-14

[Lionel, Steve]

I am willing to take a crack at wording for proposal 1, if there are no objections. I am not planning to be at 202 but I can submit a paper.

For proposal 8 I have a slight preference for "IMPLICIT NOEXTERNAL", though the use of "external" here isn't really appropriate since what is wanted is forcing explicit interfaces - you could have external procedures with an explicit interface. "IMPLICIT EXPLICIT" seems sort of ridiculous. How about "IMPLICIT INTERFACE:NONE"? One could also be allowed to write:

IMPLICIT NONE, INTERFACE:NONE

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces at mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Van Snyder
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:49 PM
To: j3
Subject: (j3.2006) US-01, US-03, US-08. US-14

US proposals 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 12 and 14 were approved as work items at Delft.

I have prepared papers concerning proposals 4, 5 and 12.

US Proposals 1, 3, 8 and 14 were described in 13-244r1 with bare-bones hand waving, and no references to more complete specifications:

        Proposal 1
        The g0 edit descriptor had a ".d" added in response
        to public comments as a part of Fortran 2008.  The requirement
        is that ".d" be absent when the list item is not real or complex
        should be eliminated to make it optional and/or ignored when
        the list item is not real or complex.  A specific behavior
        should
        be selected for interpretation of ".d" when used with g0
        and the list item is of type integer, logical, or character.

        Proposal 3
        Processors are required to have the ability to report the
        appearance
        of an intrinsic procedure not described in the standard.
        Fortran 2003 added intrinsic modules.  Processors are not
        required to report the use of non-standard intrinsic modules,
        nor of non-standard entities from standard intrinsic modules,
        or of non-standard use of standard intrinsic procedures.
        Doing so would aid standards-conformance checking of programs.
        
        Proposal 8
        Currently, there is no way to require explicit specification
        of the external attribute.  Providing such a means would aid
        program checking.

        Proposal 14
        We have been thinking about how to respond to IEEE 754 (2008).
        We should respond with an update in f1x to make it compatible
        with the 2008 revision, or clearly understand why we are not
        doing so.  See 13-227 for more [but there isn't really more
        here].

Will there be papers forthcoming for these proposals at 202?

What "specific behavior" should occur in response to proposal 1?

I think I understand what is desired for proposals 3 and 8.  I have no idea what to do concerning proposal 14.

Are these descriptions good enough for specs?

We need a proposal for syntax for proposal 8.

What are preferences for syntax?

IMPLICIT NOEXTERNAL
IMPLICIT, EXTERNAL :: NONE
EXTERNAL, NOIMPLICIT

???



_______________________________________________
J3 mailing list
J3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org
http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3