(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5174) [ukfortran] Draft result of ballot on Corrigendum 3

[Malcolm Cohen]

Bill Long writes:
>Are the replacement edits really correct?

Yes.

>On 12/24/13 10:03 AM, John Reid wrote:
>> [95:33-] Insert new BNF term
>>    "R520a <assumed-implied-spec> <<is>>  [ <lower-bound> : ] *"
>>
>
>OK, a new, reusable name for  [<lower-bound>:]* .

Yes.

>> [95:33] R521 <assumed-size-spec>, after "<<is>>"
>>    Replace entire RHS
>>      "[ <explicit-shape-spec>, ]... [ <lower-bound> : ] *"
>>    with
>>      "<explicit-shape-spec-list>, <assumed-implied-spec>"
>
>So now there is a mandatory comma as part of this syntax?

I should hope so!!!!!  Having no comma between the preceding 
explicit-shape-spec-list and the assumed-implied-spec would be a serious error, 
e.g.

  REAL X(1:100 30:*)

I think we can all agree there needs to be a comma between the 
explicit-shape-spec-list "1:100" and the assumed-implied-spec "30:*".

>  It would seem this should be
>
>"[<explicit-shape-spec-list>,] <assumed-implied-spec>"

No, the case when the explicit-shape-spec-list is missing is the ambiguous case. 
Which is why we have the edit

>>[95:32] 5.3.8.5p1
>>  Replace sentence
>>    "An assumed-size array is declared with an <assumed-size-spec>."
>>  with
>>    "A dummy argument is declared to be an assumed-size array by an
>>     <assumed-size-spec> or an <implied-shape-or-assumed-size-spec>."
>>{Now two ways of declaring assumed size.}

...
>> [96:26] R522,
>>    Replace right-hand-side (after "<<is>>")
>>      "[ <lower-bound> : ] *"
>>    with
>>      "<assumed-implied-spec>, <assumed-implied-spec-list>".
>
>Similarly here, should this not be
>
>"<assumed-implied-spec> [, <assumed-implied-spec-list>]"

No.

>or better, just
>
>"<assumed-implied-spec-list>"

No.

>since the <-list> syntax requires at least one instance of the thing being 
>qualified.  [22:16].

Those just reintroduce the ambiguity the interp is complaining about in the 
first place... the complaint wasn't "we don't have a catchy name for [ 
<lower-bound> : ] *", it was "the syntax is ambiguous".  The catchy name is only 
introduced because it simplifies the otherwise-confusing BNF and prose 
descriptions.

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