(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5612) Draft result of interpretations straw ballot 10

[John Reid]

WG5,

Here is the draft result of interpretations straw ballot 10. If I have 
omitted your ballot or made a mistake, please let me know as soon as 
possible. The decisions on the comments are subject to confirmation by 
/INTERP.

Makki asks 'Is "a nonallocatable, noncoindexed variable" appropriate as 
an ISO-style expression, not "a nonallocatable and noncoindexed variable"?'.

My answer is "yes". We do it quite often. There is an example at the 
start of the clause in which the text to be edited appears:
[69:16] " ... and nonpointer nonallocatable components ...".

Best wishes,

John.
-------------- next part --------------
                                        ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG5 N2087-1

         Result of the interpretations straw ballot 10, N2085

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.

           F03/ F08/ F08/ F03/ F08/ 
           0042 0109 0145 0147 0148 
Bader        Y    C    Y    Y    Y    
Chen         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y 
Corbett      Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    
Kruyt        Y    C    Y    C    Y
LeAir        Y    C    Y    C    Y    
Long         Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   
Moene        Y    Y    Y    Y    Y 
Muxworthy    Y    C    Y    Y    Y    
Nagle        Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   
Reid         Y    C    Y    C    Y 
Shterenlikht Y    Y    Y    Y    Y      
Snyder       Y    Y    Y    Y    Y  
Takata       Y    C    Y    C    Y 
Whitlock     Y    Y    Y    Y    Y   
Result       Y    C    Y    C    Y    


Comments and decisions of /INTERP.

F08/0109

Erik Kruyt
  CLASS(*),ALLOCATABLE, SAVE :: C[:]
  TYPE(LOCK_TYPE),      SAVE :: X[*]
  ALLOCATE(C,MOLD=X)
C is a coarray, so according to C634 C must have an 
allocate-coarray-spec, with zero allocate-coshape-specs:
  ALLOCATE(C[*],MOLD=X)
So the example should be corrected.

Reinhold Bader
I agree with Erik Kruyt that the example needs correction.

Mark LeAir
I agree with Erik Kruyt's comment.

David Muxworthy
Either the new constraint should be numbered 642a to be consistent with
the practice used for other constraints added by corrigenda, or the edit
should be at [127:10+].

John Reid
I agree with the comments of both David and Erik. 

Makki Takata
I agree with David's comment on F08/0109 that the new constraint 
should be numbered as C642a.
I agree with Erik's comment on F08/0109.
 
Decision of /INTERP:  Accept Erik's suggested change. Number the new 
constraint 642a. 

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

F08/0147

Erik Kruyt
   elemental subroutine edasgn(a,b)
      class(t),intent(out) :: a
      class(t),intent(in) :: b
      a%c = -b%c
   end subroutine
This defined assignment is not standard conforming according to C1278a.
This part of the example should be changed to:
   elemental subroutine edasgn(a,b)
      type(t),intent(out) :: a
      type(t),intent(in) :: b
      a%c = -b%c
   end subroutine

Mark LeAir
I agree with Erik Kruyt's comment.
 
John Reid
I agree with the comment of Erik. The constraint C1278a was added by 
Corr. 1.

Van Snyder
I agree with John's improvement to the edit for [243:5-7 9.12p6]

Makki Takata
I agree with Erik's comment on F08/0147.
 
Decision of /INTERP:  Accept the suggested change.