(j3.2006) Corrigendum 2

[Malcolm Cohen]

No.  You made this suggestion on the 14th of September - where in fact you voted 
NO on the interp - and I commented then that it did not work:
<<<
because a <designator> is not necessarily a <variable>.

Use of <variable> with
Cxxx The <variable> shall be a <designator>.

is not obviously worse than
use of of <designator> with
Cxxx The <designator> shall not be a constant or a subobject of a constant.
>>>

You went on to suggest adding an extra rule instead of an extra constraint, 
basically breaking up <designator>... if we actually want to use the suggested 
<variable-designator> in some other context that would be a good idea, but 
otherwise it is not a simplification.

Alternatively if we resurrected my suggestion for initialising PARAMETERs with 
DATA (for when there are too many array elements to fit into a single 
statement), then changing it to <designator> would be correct.

Cheers,

-----Original Message----- 
From: Van Snyder
Date: ?? 25?1?4? 7:07
To: j3
Subject: (j3.2006) Corrigendum 2

While looking at Corrigendum 2, I noticed that the revised C566 at
[104:26-27] begins "A <data-stmt-object> that is a <variable> shall be a
<designator>."

Would it have been simpler to change R536?

R536 <data-stmt-object> <<is>> <designator>
                        <<or>> <data-implied do>

We don't need to change the corrigendum, but if this is possible, in the
next revision we ought to consider simplifying the post-Corrigendum C566
and changing R536 instead.


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

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.
________________________________________________________________________

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