(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5498) J3/15-159 - J3 Fortran interp letterballot #33 - due 24-Apr-2015

[Malcolm Cohen]

The following Fortran interpretations are being balloted:

Yes  No   Number    Title

-Y-  ---  F08/0126  Can cobounds be referenced in the same type
                     declaration?
-Y-  ---  F08/0127  May an initial line begin with a semicolon?
-C-  ---  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
-Y-  ---  F08/0135  Vector subscripted actual makes VALUE dummy
                     undefinable?
-Y-  ---  F08/0136  Argument correspondence with VALUE and
                     ASYNCHRONOUS
-C-  ---  F08/0137  Result of TRANSFER when MOLD is an array with
                     element size zero

COMMENT F08/0128:

(1) I did not like adding this (USE of ancestor module) in the first place.  But 
I am even less convinced that we should be redesigning it.

(2) The edit instruction for [100:12] is incomplete: it should state to insert 
the text immediately after the word "descendants" (i.e. before the comma).

COMMENT F08/0137:

(1) The code for example 3 does not show any problem.  I recommend changing
   REAL c
to
   REAL c(0)

(2) The description of the problem is a bit confusing as it only mentions the 
problem in example 1, then goes on to say "these examples".  I recommending, 
after
  the size of a zero-length character is zero,
inserting
  and the size of the above derived types may be zero,

(3) Example 7 is not valid Fortran.  I recommend the change suggested by Bill 
Long.

(4) In the answer, it flatly states that examples 1-3 are not conforming, but 
although this is true for example 1, examples 2 and 3 are conforming on a 
processor that has a nonzero minimum size for a derived type.  I recommend 
changing
   Examples 1-3 are not conforming
to
   Example 1 is not conforming, and if the derived types have size zero in 
examples 2 and 3, those examples are also not conforming,

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