J3/06-346 Date: October 31, 2006 To: J3 From: Aleksandar Donev Subject: Notes on Clause 6 References: 06-210r2, 06-007r1 At meeting 177 only the "Simple editorial corrections" sections of 06-210r2 were processed. Here I resubmit: 1) Requests to clarify or change wording 2) Technical issues _________________________________ Changes of wording _________________________________ [117:1] We should change the term "structure component" since it can be read to mean "component of a structure" rather than being a made-up term. A structure is scalar, but "structure component" can be an array. I find this very weird and confusing. Maybe "object component". [117:10] We need an equivalent to C614 for the . At present this seems to be a plain restriction (non constraint) at [124:5]. [126:30] Shouldn't we add "as if via intrinsic assignment" or something alike to the end of the paragraph. The current phrasing "the value of becomes that of " does not seem to make sense for the case when is scalar and an array. _________________________________ Technical questions _________________________________ [120:11] We had an e-mail discussion about the "does not require the shape". A subroutine reference such as: CALL Subroutine(assumed_size_dummy%component) does not "require" the shape of assumed_size, yet we want to prohibit it. We seemed to agree that the wording should be improved.