J3/02-117r2 Date: 27 February 2002 To: J3 From: Subgroup A Subject: Comments on Section 16 1. Edits 381:4,6,7 [The editor was right to re-insert the cross reference for scoping unit. But now this cross reference looks lonesome. Editor: Add ``(2.2.1)'' after ``scope of a program'', ``(7.5.3, 7.5.4, 8.1)'' after ``scope of a construct'' and ``(3.3)'' after ``part of a statement''.] 387:15 [A name isn't necessarily global everywhere just because it's global in one scoping unit. Editor: ``A'' => ``Within the scoping unit, a''.] 390:5+ [Concerning lines 5-6 of Note 16.13, the editor complains (in 02-101) that the note discusses pointers, then their association status, then uses ``they'' to refer to one or the other, but to which it's not clear. It's the pointers. Editor: To make this clearer: ``the association status ... undefined'' => ``such pointers to have an undefined association status''.] 393:7+ [The editor wondered whether the Note to J3 in 01-354r1, after the edit for [379:27-31] in section 2 of that paper, was intended to be a note, an unresolved issue note, or a question for J3 to ponder during meeting 159. It was intended as the last of these, but no discussion ensued, so maybe it ought to be an unresolved issue note:] [393:3-4] Change "For ... shall" to "All scoping units that access named common blocks with the same name shall". [393:5-7] Replace the sentence, "A ... ." with "Blank common blocks may be declared with different sizes in different scoping units. For any two blank common blocks, the initial sequence of storage units of the longer blank common block shall be identical to the sequence of storage units of the shorter blank common block. If two blank common blocks are of the same length, they shall have the same sequence of storage units."