(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5472) J3/15-159 - J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #33 - due 24-Apr-2015
Thu Apr 23 13:55:57 EDT 2015
On Mar 29, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Whitlock, Stan <stan.whitlock at intel.com> wrote:
> To: J3 Members
> From: Stan Whitlock
> Subject: J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #33 - due 24-Apr-2015
> Date: 2015 March 29
The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:
Yes No Number Title
-Y- --- F08/0126 Can cobounds be referenced in the same type
-Y- --- F08/0127 May an initial line begin with a semicolon?
--- -N- F08/0128 Is recursive USE within a submodule permitted?
-Y- --- F08/0129 Is CLASS(type) required to refer to a prior type
-Y- --- F08/0130 Does coarray allocation sync even with stopped
-Y- --- F08/0131 Are the changes to C_LOC in the 2010 revision
-Y- --- F08/0132 Can a procedure pointer be declared with an
-Y- --- F08/0133 Is unallocated actual associated with
nonallocatable dummy OK?
-Y- --- F08/0134 <stat-variable> in an image control statement
-Y- --- F08/0135 Vector subscripted actual makes VALUE dummy
-Y- --- F08/0136 Argument correspondence with VALUE and
--- -N- F08/0137 Result of TRANSFER when MOLD is an array with
element size zero
Comment for F08/0128:
The discussion in this interp illustrates why the argument in 09-141
was wrong. I think a better answer for this interp is that passing
09-141 was a mistake and it is being corrected by reinstating the
prohibition on a submodule using its ancestor. An alternative, but
equivalent answer, is that there is no rational reason to allow use of
its ancestor module in a submodule, and the failure to prohibit this
is an error in the standard.
Comment for F08/0137:
The answer for Example 7 is nominally wrong since the example has a
declaration of a dummy argument (source4) that includes
initialization. That is sufficient to make the example
non-conforming. The example code can be repaired by changing the
declaration of source4 to something like this:
CHARACTER(999) :: source4(10) = REPEAT('!',999) ! Ditto.
which seems to preserve the intent of the question while avoiding the
error. With this change, I'd change my vote to Yes. I'll leave it to
/Interp to decide whether J3 needs to revote a corrected version of the
interp (since others have already voted on the current wording), or
just fix it and send it on to WG5.
Bill Long longb at cray.com
Fortran Technical Suport & voice: 651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142
Cray Inc./ Cray Plaza, Suite 210/ 380 Jackson St./ St. Paul, MN 55101
More information about the J3