J3/06-275r2

Date: 15 August 2006
To: J3
From: Dick Hendrickson
Subject: clause 1 and 2 problems
References: J3/06-007

Questions and comments that are more than editorial.

[2:4] bullet 6, doesn't IEEE and clause 9/10 specify
rounding behavior and also SQRT accuracy?

Withdrawn

[2:9] Says a program is standard conforming if it uses the
forms described herein. Does that need to be changed
because of C interoperability? We hardly describe
that here.

Withdrawn

[2:9] Related to the above, I think there is confusion about
how a main program is described. [9:10] and [9:15]
say a main program is a Fortran main program and don't
say anything about a C main. [12:21] says must have
exactly one main program, which I would take to be the
English equivalent to the bnf main-program. [15:11]
says "if a program contains a main program...".

Withdrawn

[2:14] Does VOLATILE affect the way things are interpreted?
Basically, the standard provides no clue about
volatile.

Withdrawn

[13:11] Don't we now allow internal procedures to be passed
as actual arguments? No longer local. Can they be
pointed to by a procedure pointer? or type bound?

Withdrawn

[298:4] related issue. [298:4] says an internal proc
can't be passed, 12.5.1.6 says it can.

Defer to /B, 193R1

[13:20] Do we need finalizers or generic type bound
procedures here?

Withdrawn, text is correct

[15:table 2.2] Add a column for derived type definitions,
they're the only missing scoping unit.

Withdrawn

[17:3+] I agree with Malcolm's issue 1
Defer to 06-235

[18:3] Add "This is the required behavior if there are no
co-array things used."

Withdrawn, covered by 06-235

[19:35] This says that dummy arguments are not local
variables of a subroutine. 16.3.1 [488:5], say
they are. Also, [33:16] says a macro dummy is a
local thing.

Withdrawn

[24:7] Doesn't intrinsic also apply to processor supplied
types, like QUAD, that are not provided by a module
or procedures?

Withdrawn