J3/06-347r1 Date: 2006/11/16 To: J3 From: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Notes on Clause 7 References: 06-210r2, 06-007r1 This is a response to 06-347. Q. [145:13-146:2] Is very repetitive---it would be useful to rewrite it. A. It is not just repetitive, it is entirely redundant, contradictory, and incorrect. The first sentence of the next subclause gives extreme licence to the processor for optimisation rendering the feeble one at 146:2-4 unnecessary. EDIT. Delete paragraph [145:13-146:4]. Q. [164:28-29] Here we say "LBOUND applied to the corresponding dimension of data-target". For intrinsic assignment we say "corresponding element of LBOUND()". We should be consistent. See also [177:2-3]. A. The two cases mentioned are consistently worded in 06-007r1. Q. [165:?] In Note 7.49, we should add an example of rank-remapping using CONTIGUOUS. Something like: A. Agreed. EDIT [165:11-1] Append to Note 7.49 "Rank remapping can be applied to CONTIGUOUS arrays, for example: REAL, CONTIGUOUS, POINTER :: A(:) REAL, CONTIGUOUS, TARGET :: B(:,:) ! Dummy argument A(1:SIZE(B)) => B ! Linear view of a rank-2 array" ===END===