01-335r1 Response to Chapter 5 Comments To: J3 From: Craig Dedo Date: August 23, 2001 Subject: Response to Chapter 5 Comments The A Team considered the comments in 01-260 and recommends as follows. 1. We no longer have BINDNAME, so the comments on [65:13-14,16] are no longer relevant. 2. No to all of the comments from [66:29-30] through [68:16-18]. The redundancy is useful. 3. [68:41] Defer this issue to Data Subgroup. 4. [69:33] No. "Base object" is defined for variables [95:7]. Typo is fixed in 01-313. 5. [70:24-25] No. Paper 298r1 got rid of bind-spec. 6. [70:36] No. 7. [70:42,44] No. These terms are already set and we should not change them. 8. [72:12] No. This is the common English meaning of "defined". 9. [74:13] Yes. [74:16-17] Change "the dummy argument becomes disassociated" to "the pointer association status of the dummy argument becomes undefined". 10. [74:35-37] and [76:9-10] Defer until Interpretation 31 is resolved. 11. [77:17] No. This is no longer relevant. 12. [77:36+] Yes. Add a new paragraph, "If the ALLOCATABLE and VOLATILE attributes are both specified, then the volatility shall apply to the allocation status, bounds, and definition status." 13. [83:40+] No. [30:37-38] says it already. 14. [87:27] No. Base object can be a variable. References 01-007r2, Fortran 2000 Draft 01-260, Comments on Section 5 [End of J3 / 01-335r1]