(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5472) J3/15-159 - J3 Fortran interp letter ballot #33 - due 24-Apr-2015

Robert Corbett robert.corbett
Fri Apr 24 04:21:16 EDT 2015

The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No   Number    Title

-Y-  ---  F08/0126  Can cobounds be referenced in the same type
---  -N-  F08/0127  May an initial line begin with a semicolon?
-Y-  ---  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
                      interface block?
-Y-  ---  F08/0133  Is unallocated actual associated with
                      nonallocatable dummy OK?
-Y-  ---  F08/0134 <stat-variable> in an image control statement
-C-  ---  F08/0135  Vector subscripted actual makes VALUE dummy
-C-  ---  F08/0136  Argument correspondence with VALUE and
---  -N-  F08/0137  Result of TRANSFER when MOLD is an array with
                      element size zero

F08/0127 N

The existing text and the proposed edit do not completely
encompass the change made to the language.  The restriction that
was removed was

       A ``;'' shall not appear as the first nonblank
       character on a line.

(Clause, paragraph 2 of the Fortran 2003 standard).
The quoted sentence appears in the description of free source
form.  The existing text and the text after the applying the
edit refer only to the line beginning with a semicolon, not a
sequence of blanks followed by a semicolon.

I would change my vote to yes if the proposed edit is replaced
[xvi] Replace
  "A line in the program is permitted to begin with a semicolon."
  "A free form continuation line is permitted to begin with zero
   or more blanks followed by a semicolon."

F08/0135 C

I would like a "SUBMITTED BY:" clause to be added to the
interpretation.  The paper containing the interpretation was
submitted by Van.

F08/0136 C

Ditto F08/0135.

F08/0137 N

I do not like the proposed interpretation.  I would prefer the
definition of TRANSFER to specify a result for all sets of
arguments.  Defining some combinations of arguments not to be
conforming does not promote portability.  I would prefer that
when the argument MOLD is an array whose elements have storage
size zero, the result be an array of rank one and size zero.

More information about the J3 mailing list