J3/01-164 Date: 15 March 2001 To: J3 From: Malcolm Cohen Subject: Unresolved issues 260 and 267 1. Introduction to 260 The editor states "Note 7.16 refers to constant expressions twice." The first occurrence should be replaced by initialization expressions, the second occurrence is just spurious (now that we no longer have constant expressions). 2. Edits for 260 [118:2] Change "constant" to "initialization". {They are examples of initialization expressions.} [118:11] Delete "constant". {They are all good examples of expressions that look like they might be, but are not, initialization expressions.} [118:15-18] Delete J3 note. 3. Introduction to 267 The editor states "Section 7.1.8.0 applies only to operands. I don't know why we have to spell all this out for operands, ... but we don't have to ... about the expr in assignment statements ..." I agree that this is unnecessarily redundant. 4. Discussion The requirements of the first paragraph of 7.1.8 are the same as in the first paragraph of 6., which states [93:1] "The appearance of a data object designator in a context that requires its value is termed a reference." and goes on to list the requirements for a reference. Clearly, being an operand to an intrinsic operation is a context that requires the value. Deleting the redundant requirements is good, but it behooves us to make absolutely clear that this is indeed such a context (and thus activate the requirements). 5. Edits for 267 [118:20-25] Replace paragraph with "Intrinsic operations require the values of their operands." {Make sure we activate the requirements in 6.0 by making clear that this is a context that requires the value of a data object.} [118:26-34] Delete J3 note. ===END