07-268R1 To: J3 From: Dick Hendrickson Subject: Interpretation: Does allocate define subcomponents? Date: 2007 August 8 NUMBER: F03/0098 TITLE: Does allocate with source= define subcomponents? KEYWORDS: allocate, source, define DEFECT TYPE: Erratum STATUS: J3 consideration in progress QUESTION: Was it intended that an allocate with a source= clause define subcomponents? Bullet 11 on 422 says "Successful execution of an allocate STATEMENT ...causes the subcomponent to become undefined." ANSWER: An Allocate with a SOURCE= specifier was intended to define subcomponents. In fact, none of the lists in clause 16 account for a SOURCE= specifier. Edits are supplied to clarify this. EDITS: [113:21] At the end of the last sentence in 6.3.1.1 insert "unless they are defined by a SOURCE= specifier" [421:27-28] 16.5.6, list item 19, modify by adding after "Allocation of an object", "except by an ALLOCATE statement with a SOURCE= specifier" [421:28+] 16.5.6, insert new list item after (19) "(19a) Successful execution of an ALLOCATE statement with a SOURCE= specifier causes a subcomponent of the allocated object to become defined if the corresponding subcomponent of the SOURCE= expression is defined." [422:41] 16.5.6, list item (11) insert "with no SOURCE= specifier" after "ALLOCATE statement" [422:43+] 16.5.6, add a new list item after (11), "(11a) Successful execution of an ALLOCATE statement with a SOURCE= specifier causes a subcomponent of the allocated object to become undefined if the corresponding subcomponent of the SOURCE= expression is undefined." SUBMITTED BY: Dick Hendrickson HISTORY: 07-268 m181 F03/00xx Submitted 07-268R1 m181 Draft answer