J3/99-204 Date: 9 August 1999 To: J3 From: Jeanne Martin Subject: Unresolved issue 195 References: J3/99-007R2 J3/99-108r1 INITIAL/FINAL Edits 1. Introduction Paper 99-108r1 introduced some new terminology. Issue 195 points out the lack of a definition for the term "executable scoping unit". The J3 internal note appears in section 5.1.2.5 "SAVE attribute", but the same term appears in section 5.3.4 "SAVE statement". The definition for "scoping unit" is 1) a derived-type definition 2) an interface body, excluding any derived-type definitions and interface bodies in it 3) a program unit or subprogram, excluding derived-type definitions, interface bodies, and subprograms in it where a program unit is 1) main program 2) module 3) external subprogram 4) block data program unit Clearly it was intended that derived-type definitions, interface bodies, modules, and block data program units be excluded from "executable scoping units"; however, subprograms in modules and internal subprograms should be included. This issue was studied at the WG5 meeting in Cadarache and the subgroup felt that because the term appears in several places, the definition should appear earlier in the standard in section 2 (and in the glossary). The following edits accomplish this. 2. Edits {Add a definition to section 2.2 Program unit concepts.} [12:6+] An <> is a scoping unit that contains executable statements (2.3.1); it is a main program or subprogram excluding any subprograms within it. {Incidental edit} [13:25] (Delete redundant period at end of line.) (Add definition to glossary.) [[418:8+] <> (2.2): A scoping unit that contains executable statements (2.3.1). It is a main program or subprogram excluding any subprograms within it. 3. Other Considerations Are the references to instances being the "direct or indirect result" of other instances clear? (5.1.2.5 and 5.3.4) It is proposed that part of 99-108r1 be excised from the draft standard. Some of the resulting edits to J3/99-007r1 (such as the ones to sections 5.1.2.5 and 5.3.4) attempted to clean up the text. Should we retain these or revert to the text in J3/99-007? These particular edits have nothing to do with the addition of INITIAL and FINAL to the draft, but do improve the clarity.