J3/06-344r1 Date: 2006/11/15 To: J3 From: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Notes on Clause 4 (and 2) References: 06-210r2, 06-007r1 This is a response to 06-344. Q. [20:20] The first sentence does not include the newly added ability to perform pointer association via explicit initialization or default initialization. A. Agreed. EDIT. [20:20] Append to sentence "or pointer initialization (4.5.4.5 Default initialization for components, 5.2.3 Initialization)" Q. [78:13+4-5] Near the end of Note 4.67, the phrase "interoperable values" which I don't think is defined. Maybe "the types will be interoperable"? A. Agreed EDIT. [78:13+4-5] "values"->"types" twice. Q. [55:4] Is "ultimate/direct component of a type" well-defined? We have subcomponents of an object, and ultimate/direct components of an object. How about of a type? This is important because we have used this phrase heavily, especially for co-arrays (see for example C616 at [117:13-14]). A. No, it is not explicitly defined; you should not be using such a term. In particular, C616 is faulty. EDIT. [117:13-14] "be of a type that has" -> "have". COMMENT. Please point out any other places for similar repair. ===END===