(j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5944) AW: draft comments for CD
Tue Aug 22 11:29:13 EDT 2017
Bader, Reinhold wrote:
> Hello John,
> thanks for the feedback. Further comments inline.
Thanks for telling me how you have treated my comments.
187:26. I don't think this edit is needed. An associated coarray is
established by the association, see 5.4.8, para 3.
Re 562:32, I agree that a change at 187:26 is desirable, but it should
be a separate comment in order with the others. The TS (at 10: 23-24)
says "The coarray shall be established when the CHANGE TEAM statement
begins execution." but this seems not to have made it to the draft
standard. How about using these words?
I think an edit might be needed to the example on 562.
>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: owner-sc22wg5 at open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5 at open-std.org]
>> Im Auftrag von John Reid
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2017 00:15
>> An: WG5 <sc22wg5 at open-std.org>
>> Betreff: (SC22WG5.5942) (j3.2006) draft comments for CD
>> Bader, Reinhold wrote:
>>> Dear WG5/J3,
>>> attached please find my draft contribution for the comments from
>> Here are my (personal) comments on your comments.
>> 40:17. I think the present text is OK. An image can have an execution state of
> OK - I've deleted this comment.
>> 45:22. An image can be a member of more than one established team, so the
>> new words would be better as ?of a team in which it is established (5.4.8)?.
> I've made this change.
>> 105:29-30. I think the present text is OK. An assumed-rank entity is just that.
>> It is not an array.
> Unfortunately, the object has the DIMENSION attribute, and an assumed-rank-spec is
> a variant of array-spec. I've modified the suggested change to read:
> [105:29-30] Delete C831
> [104:14+] Insert reworded constraint C829+
> ?A named object with the DIMENSION attribute that has the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute shall have an array-spec that is a deferred-shape-spec-list or an assumed-rank-spec.?
>> 124. For the edit, don't you need "of a derived type defined in the module"?
>> 188. I think the definitive text needs to be clearer on this point.
> Maybe, but Bill hasn't commented on the relevant thread yet, so this might become homework for J3.
>> 500:22-23. In the edit, change "subscripts[n-1]" to "subscript[n-1]".
> The parameter has the name "subscripts", so I think my edit is OK.
>> 562:32. Comment to come.
More information about the J3