(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5115) Result of the interpretations ballot 7

[John Reid]

WG5,

Here is the result of interpretations ballot 7. There were no requests 
for changes to the draft I sent out last week and the decisions of 
/INTERP are now included.

Now for Corrigendum 3!

Best wishes,

John.
-------------- next part --------------
                                        ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N1994

         Result of the interpretations ballot 7, N1992
         
Key for the Result line:
     Y vote passes unconditionally.
     C vote passes, subject to minor changes noted below.
     N vote fails. Returned to J3 for further work. 
          
   
           F08/ F08/ F08/ F03/ F08/ F08/ F08/ F08/ 
           0091 0092 0093 0094 0095 0096 0097 0098 
Bader        Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y        
Chen         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    
Cohen        Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y        
Corbett      Y    Y    N    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y        
Long         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    
Maclaren     Y    Y    N    Y    Y    C    Y    Y 
Moene        Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y 
Muxworthy    Y    Y    C    Y    Y    Y    Y    C  
Nagle        Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    
Reid         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    
Snyder       Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y          
Whitlock     Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    
Result       Y    Y    C    Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   


Comments, reasons for NO votes, and decisions of \INTERP. 

F08/0093

Corbett No vote:

I agree with the objections raised by Nick Maclaren. 

Maclaren No vote:

My vote is "no" solely because this assumes the POSIX view of error
status without specifying it.  For example, VMS (which is still
twitching) uses a different conventions, and zOS is also slightly
different.  In Fortran 2008 (2.3.5p4, Note 8.30 and 13.7.57p3), there is
no implied linkage between the numeric value of the exit status and
success or failure.  This interpretation introduces such a link.

Prepending some description like this to NOTE 2.6a would change my vote:

   In the recommendations for a program exit status, it is
   assumed that it is an integer with zero indicating success;
   processors that use other conventions should interpret the
   recommendations accordingly.

Muxworthy comment:

The new line inserted at 460:24+ would be more appropriately placed
at 459:17+ since the subclause references in A.2 are otherwise
in numerical order.


Decision of /INTERP: Pass subject to the change proposed by David 
Muxworthy.  

Reasons: The objection raised by Nick Maclaren was considered and 
rejected in previous rounds of voting.

....................................................................

F08/0096

Maclaren comment:

This wording makes an assertion about C which cannot be unambiguously
deduced from normative text in the C standard, was the topic of extended
but inconclusive debates in WG14, and has been and is interpreted in a
variety of ways by several derived languages.  I would prefer wording
that does not make such assertions about C, such as:

A1. C does not have any argument passing mechanism for arrays that
   corresponds to Fortran passing arrays by value, so this was not
   intended to conform to the Fortran standard.  An edit is provided
   to clarify this.

Decision of /INTERP: Pass

Reasons: In email discussion, Nick Maclaren has not produced a 
counter-example to Malcolm Cohen's quote of the C standard which  
specifies that arrays are passed as pointers, i.e. by reference.  
His suggested alternative answer is not acceptable because it uses
circular reasoning.

....................................................................

F08/0098

Muxworthy comment:

Should new constraint C852a have a reference to R864?

Decision of /INTERP: Pass

Reasons: BNF rule numbers in constraints are not references.  
The constraint is correctly worded as is. 

....................................................................