(j3.2006) Questions about passed-object dummy argument
Fri Dec 2 01:11:52 EST 2016
Your proposed replacement text does not have the same effect.
There is no case for mucking around with correct text. It is very far
indeed from "clarifying" as instead it makes a technical change (when the
procedure is NOT elemental).
>If C1536 doesn't remind the reader that the procedure is necessarily
and why should it, that is not particularly important. C1536 says what it
A reader who has forgotten that passed-object dummy arguments must be scalar
will soon be reminded when the compiler tells them.
> I don't see how stating the
>conclusion of reasoning that requires bringing together facts from two
>clauses separated by hundreds of pages introduces a problem.
There are potentially many unimportant conclusions like this one, we could
probably quadruple the size of the standard by including them, without any
adverse effect on compiler sizes! Well, apart from taking up more of
people's time reading the document.
The rest of your message I cannot understand as you are ascribing views to
me that I expressed the opposite to in my first message. Anyway I am done
discussing technical changes or unnecessary and drastic rewordings as I have
tons of things to do.
.............Malcolm Cohen, NAG Oxford/Tokyo.
More information about the J3