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]