J3/04-418 To: J3 Members Date: 1-Nov-2004 From: /interp/Stan Whitlock Subj: Results of the F03 interp letter ballot #9 Here are the results of J3 letter ballot #9 on Fortran 2003 interpretations that closed on 20-Oct-2004. The ballot is in J3 paper 04-377 from meeting #170. If I have transcribed a vote or a comment incorrectly, please let me know. J3 rep F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Rich Bleikamp no ballot received Dick Hendrickson Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Michael Ingrassia no ballot received Rob James C Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Bill Long Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Jeanne Martin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Dan Nagle Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Craig Rasmussen no ballot received Van Snyder Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Matthijs (Toon) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Stan Whitlock Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y J3 rep F03 F03 F03 14 15 16 Rich Bleikamp no ballot received Dick Hendrickson Y Y Y Michael Ingrassia no ballot received Rob James N C Y Bill Long Y Y Y Jeanne Martin Y Y Y Dan Nagle Y Y Y Craig Rasmussen no ballot received Van Snyder Y N Y Matthijs/Toon Y Y Y Stan Whitlock Y Y Y where Y means "yes" C "yes with comment" N "no with comment" The comments for each interp are attached below in the same order as the table above. The summary of DRAFT results is as follows: P = passed C = passed as amended F = further consideration F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 F03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 P P P P P P P F P P P F P C P P The interps marked "C" pass with some minor typo fixes, as noted below. The interps marked "F" will be reconsidered at J3 meeting #170 by the /interp committee who will decide if the status becomes "withdraw for more work", "passed as amended", or "passed as printed". /Stan ************************************************************************ F03/0001 Generic type-bound procedures Rob James' YES comment for F03/0001: While there is no technical problem, the different uses of are confusing, and should be changed in the next revision of the standard. F03/0008 Pointer assignment and arrays Dick Hendrickson's NO comment for F03/0008: I agree with Bill and Rob about the additions to the constraints. Rob James' NO comment for F03/0008: There is an additional edit necessary for this interpretation. [143:37] Insert "" before "". Bill Long's NO comment for F03/0008: The interp edits change to in R736 and R741. The same change needs to be made in the constraints on these rules: C722 [143:24] and C725 [143:37]. Jeanne Martin's NO comment for F03/0008: I agree with the other NO votes. Stan Whitlock's NO comment for F03/0008: I agree with BillL. F03/0012 Procedure pointers and the EXTERNAL attribute Dick Hendrickson's NO comment for F03/0012: Wait for action on 401 Bill Long's NO comment for F03/0012: The proposed edits create a conflict with C568 [91:5] . Van has submitted 04-401 as a proposed solution to this problem. We should revisit this interp based on that paper. Jeanne Martin's NO comment for F03/0012: I agree with the other NO votes. Van Snyder's revised NO comment for F03/0012: I change my YES vote to a NO and will submit a paper {04-401} with a revised answer. Stan Whitlock's NO comment for F03/0012: I agree with BillL. F03/0014 Automatic arrays in interface bodies Rob James' NO comment for F03/0014: The direction of this interpretation is good, but I disagree with the second edit. The meaning of the word "may" is ambiguous, and unless I am mistaken, its usage violates an ISO rule. If "may be declared only in" is changed to "must only be declared in", then I will change my vote to YES. {Later Rob added: "shall" would be the right word to use here.} F03/0015 TARGET attribute for associate names Rob James' YES comment for F03/0015: I believe that Van Snyder's argument against the edit in this interpretation is incorrect. He makes the assumption that this part of the standard is talking about the target of the selector. [161:19] actually says "if and only if the selector is a variable and has the attribute". It does not say "the target of the selector". Other parts of the standard ([413:11] in particular) mention the possibility of the selector having the POINTER attribute, so it is not obvious that [161:19] really means "the target of the selector" in the case where the selector is a pointer. Van Snyder's NO comment for F03/0015: I agree with the answer but don't agree that any edits are necessary. The target of a pointer necessarily has the target attribute. We require at [413:11-12] that if the selector has the POINTER attribute it shall be associated with a target, and say that the associate name becomes associated with that target. The target of a pointer is a variable. So the text already at [161:18-19] is adequate.