(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
declaration?
--- -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
definition?
-Y- --- F08/0130 Does coarray allocation sync even with stopped
images?
-Y- --- F08/0131 Are the changes to C_LOC in the 2010 revision
intentional?
-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
undefinable?
-C- --- F08/0136 Argument correspondence with VALUE and
ASYNCHRONOUS
--- -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 3.3.1.3, 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
with
[xvi] Replace
"A line in the program is permitted to begin with a semicolon."
with
"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