J3/06-153 Date: 6 March 2006 To: J3 From: Van Snyder Subject: Interpretation request concerning VALUE, INTENT and PURE NUMBER: F03/0082 TITLE: VALUE in place of INTENT for pure procedure dummy arguments KEYWORDS: VALUE, INTENT, PURE DEFECT TYPE: Erratum STATUS: QUESTION: C1266 requires all nonpointer dummy arguments of a pure function to be data objects that have INTENT(IN). C1267 requires all dummy arguments of a pure subroutine to have specified intents. Was it intended that VALUE not be allowed in place of INTENT(IN), that is, was it intended that if a dummy argument of a pure procedure has the VALUE attribute, it is nonetheless also required to have the INTENT(IN) attribute explicitly specified? ANSWER: It was an oversight that VALUE is not allowed to stand on its own. EDITS: All edits refer to 04-007. [286:12] at the end of C1266, add "or the VALUE attribute". [286:13-14] Replace C1277: C1277 Within the of a pure subroutine subprogram, for each dummy data object, either its intent shall be explicitly specified, or it shall have the VALUE attribute. SUBMITTED BY: Van Snyder HISTORY: Submitted at J3 meeting 176 as J3/06-153