J3 01-169R2
To:      J3
From:    /interop
Date:    22 March 2001
Subject: VALUE and INTENT(IN), unresolved issue 161

Part 1:

At least two vendors on the committee are implementing
interoperability features of the F2K draft standard.  Both
vendors have received complaints about the VALUE attribute
implying INTENT(IN).  C programmers are accustomed to
modifying the value of formal parameters of a function without
changing the value of the actual arguments to the function.
That is, value formal parameters are often used as local
variables during the execution of the function without changing
the value of the associated actual arguments.  The following
edits remove the implicit INTENT(IN) of the VALUE attribute.

Edit: [77:22-23] replace with

      The VALUE attribute specifies a type of argument association
      (12.4.1) for a dummy argument.

Part 2:

Unresolved issue 161 states that we need to talk about how arguments
get associated with C formal parameters.  Argument association
happens as with Fortran calling Fortran except when a dummy
argument in an interface has the VALUE attribute.  An edit
is applied to Section 12.4.1, Actual arguments, dummy arguments
and argument association, to describe argument association when
the VALUE attribute is specified.

Edit: [255:32+] add new paragraph and a note

        If the dummy argument has the VALUE attribute it becomes
        associated with a definable anonymous data object whose
        initial value is that of the actual argument. Subsequent
        changes to the value or definition status of the dummy
         argument do not affect the actual argument.

Note 12.x x

      Fortran argument association is usually similar to call
      by reference and call by value-result.
      If the VALUE attribute is specified, the effect is
      as if the actual argument is assigned to a temporary, and the
      temporary is then argument associated with the
      dummy argument.  The actual mechanism by which this happens is
      determined by the companion processor.

End note.

Edit: [270:25-27] delete unresolved issue 161